According to IVP N.T. Wright new upcoming books is also a respond to John Piper book on Justification.


About the Book
Few issues are more central to the Christian faith than the nature, scope and means of salvation. Many have thought it to be largely a transaction that gets one to heaven. In this riveting book, N. T. Wright explains that God's salvation is radically more than this.

At the heart of much vigorous debate on this topic is the term the apostle Paul uses in several of his letters to describe what happens to those in Christ--justification. Paul uses this dramatic image from the law court to declare that Christians are acquitted of the cosmic accusations against them. But justification goes beyond this in Paul's writings to offer a vision of God's future for the whole world as well as for his people.

Here in one place Wright now offers a comprehensive account and defense of his perspective on this crucial doctrine. He provides a sweeping overview of the central points in the debate before launching into a thorough explanation of the key texts in Paul's writings. While fully cognizant of tradition and controversy, the final authority for his conclusions is the letters of Paul themselves.

Along the way Wright responds to critics, such as John Piper, who have challenged what has come to be called the New Perspective. For Wright, what Paul means by justification is nothing less than God's unswerving commitment to the covenant promise he made to bless the whole world through Abraham and his family.

This irenic response is an important contribution for those on both sides of the debate--and those still in between--to consider. Whether you're a fan of Wright's work or have read his critics and would like to know the other side of the story, here is a chance to interact with Wright's views on the issues at stake and form your own conclusions.


Link: IVP - Justification

__________________
Gil Garcia
Rehoboth Reformed Church (RCUS)
La Habra, CA

"Ignorance of this distinction between Law and Gospel is one of the principal sources of the abuses which corrupted and still corrupt Christianity." - Calvin's successor


"By the words of the law man is admonished and taught, not what he can do, but what he ought to do. How is it that you theologians are twice as stupid as schoolboys, in that as soon as you get hold of a single imperative verb you infer an indicative meaning...?"
-Martin Luther, The Bondage of the Will

What, in brief, is the New Perspective on Paul, according to N.T. Wright? I have a 3-lecture series from RTS by D.A. Carson on it but I haven't listened to it...

__________________
Steven Nemes
Phoenix, AZ

Good philosophy must exist, if for no other reason, because bad philosophy must be answered - C.S. Lewis

I am not a theologian.

My impression of "new perspectives" is that it is an offshoot of the serious error of "federal vision" (or, I think the latter came off of the former).

It is disappointing that Inter varsity would publish this kind of material, especially in the kind of relativist tone used in its promotion.

__________________
Scott
PCA
North Carolina


"Let us hold fast the profession of our faith without wavering; (for he is faithful that promised)"
Hebrews 10:23

Sorry Wright, I won't follow you back to the RC "church"!

__________________
[B]Manley Beasley[/B]
Southern Baptist Convention
Fayetteville, Arkansas

[B]Wir sein pettler. Hoc est verum (We are beggars. This is true.).--Luther's dying words[/B]

In short, Wright takes the position that for the past 2,000 years the church has been looking at Paul and his writings the wrong way. Paul needs to be considered in the time that he lived, ie; based on what is called Second Temple Judaism. Looking at Paul through the lens of second temple judaism he comes up with a whole "new" perspective on Paul. Wright is basically following in the foot steps of Dunn and E. P Sanders, but with his own twists. I'm sure listening to the series you have from Carson will be well worth your while.

__________________
~Wayne Wylie~
Member, Mid Cities Presbyterian Church (OPC)
Ruling Elder
http://www.mcopc.org
Bedford, TX

Job 28:28 - And unto man he said, Behold, the fear of the Lord, that is wisdom; and to depart from evil is understanding.

Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions?

__________________
Toni Cunningham, Wife of Bill (Theognome)
Parkwoods OPC, Overland Park KS

"Vice is a monster of so frightful mien, As, to be hated, needs but to be seen; Yet seen too oft, familiar with her face, We first endure, then pity, then embrace." ~ Alexander Pope

You may also be interested in in ordering from your local library a copy of the book, Justification and the New Perspectives on Paul, by Guy Prentiss Waters. It is a short, highly accessible work that, while avoiding both technicality and great detail, nevertheless gives a fairly thorough conceptual introduction to the topic and the reasons why the Reformed are and should be so opposed. It's also worth noting that Waters studied under Sanders for many years.

__________________
Paul Korte
OPC
Flint, MI

They who perceive in themselves discoveries of the divine goodness, so full and absolutely perfect, and who make them the subject of earnest meditation, will never embrace new doctrines, by which the very grace they feel so powerfully in themselves is thrown into the shade. --John Calvin

Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions?

Trevin Wax: How does this robust discussion on justification between you and John Piper help the church to better fulfill its purpose in the world?

N.T. Wright: How does the robust discussion between me and Piper help the church to better fulfill its purpose in the world? Well, I hope it will, and that’s part of the main point of what I’m saying.

My anxiety about what has now been seen as the traditional Reformed view (though there are many traditional Reformed views!) is that it focuses all attention on ‘me and my salvation’ rather than on ‘God and God’s purposes’, which – as we see in the Gospels, and in e.g. Romans 8 – are much wider than just my salvation. This book, for me, thus follows from Surprised by Hope and the other things I’ve been writing in the same vein.

More generally, I hope that the book will alert people to the fact that the underlying discussion is really about taking Scripture seriously – (a) the whole Scripture, not just selected parts, and (b) Scripture as the final arbiter, over against all human traditions including our own! That cannot but help the church in its purpose in the world .


Here is the full interview link: Interview with N.T. Wright - Responding to Piper on Justification Kingdom People

Right on the issue, Manley!

Wright has been, with more or less discretion, pushing the Anglican Church back to Rome.


The Catholic Herald - 16 January 2009 - Title of the Article

N T Wright on how we can make the quest for unity exciting again

The Bible can put new zest into ecumenism - Catholic Herald Online

quote

Three months ago I had the privilege of being the Anglican Fraternal Delegate at the Synod of Bishops in Rome.
The topic was "the word of God", and it quickly became clear that it carried enormous ecumenical implications. N. T. Wright

__________________
César Proença

there is no will nor running by which we can prepare the way for our salvation, it is wholly of the Divine Mercy Jean Calvin Institutes II . V. 17

Reformed Churches in The Netherlands (liberated) http://www.gkv.nl/main.asp?intTreeviewID=954

Igreja Reformada em Massamá Portugal http://www.igrejareformada.pt

Because of Wright's stature among believing scholars, many have been led down the primrose path of NPP through his writing. I am concerned that his work ends up revoking the Reformation, denying imputation, and turning justification into little more than a plea "can't we just get along" with others. If the use of "Dike Dikaios Dikaiosyne" is NOT about justification in our salvation and standing at the bar of God's justice, I'll eat my hat.

__________________
Dennis E. McFadden, Ex Mainline Baptist (in Remission)
Atherton Baptist Homes, CEO
First Baptist Church of Alhambra, Member, Transformation Ministries (CA)

Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions?

Sad thing is, I'm probably gonna just have to buy it now.

__________________
Michael Turner
Christ Reformed Church | Independent [WCF]
Georgia

Below is an excellent panel discussion with Guy P. Waters on Christ for Center audio porgram.

Reformed Forum N.T. Wright’s Doctrine of Justification, Part 1

I think Wright would eat his hat too: "Those who believe the gospel are declared to be 'in the right.'"

__________________
Yours sincerely,


"Illum oportet crescere me autem minui."

I feel uneasy buying these kinds of books, but I feel like I have to do so in order to keep up with the issues. I try to buy used copies on Amazon, but often it's more cost-effective to buy them new.

I hate putting more money in their pockets, though. I feel like I'm supporting the enemy, in a sense.

__________________
Andy
Pastoral Intern
PCA
Escondido, CA

Or, try inter-library loan. I can usually get a book for $1 that way. A lot of times I don't even want to keep the book.

__________________
Charlie Johnson
Downtown Presbyterian Church (PCA)
Greenville Presbyterian Theological Seminary, student

That's what libraries are for.

__________________
Clark Brooking
Pastor
Living Hope Presbyterian Church (OPC)
Clarksville, MD

I guess I have an irrational desire to keep a copy on-hand for reference. And I tend to mark them up (highlighting, notes in margins, etc.).

IVP - Justification

__________________
Wayne Whitmer
Member, Rio Rancho OPC
Albuquerque, NM

I used to try to keep up on the cults and the latest "heresy of the week". I have found out, there are not enough hours in the day for me to do so. Now I try to unpack a chunk of scripture per week for my Sunday School lesson and keep it in line with the Reformed tradition as per LBC1689.

__________________
Rich Koster
1689'er
Browns Mills NJ USA
Often Goofy Reformed Eccentric
Romans 7:14-25

It's worth going through e.g. the talks by Don Carson here

http://www.monergism.com/directory/s...spective&B1=Go

or some other material by a sound guide.

I'll probably also get round to reading Cornelis Venema's material.

What struck me in my limited exploration of this is that some of the stuff that Wright has come up with when properly understood will strengthen and further confirm the Reformed understanding of justification as being by faith alone.

__________________
Richard
communicant member, FCoS
Perth, Scotland UK

His Name forever shall endure;
last like the sun it shall:
Men shall be blessed in Him,
and blessed all nations shall Him call (Ps. 72:17)

I think he's the Karl Barth of our time.

-----Added 5/13/2009 at 05:32:25 EST-----

That's good advice. He's not the heresy of the week. He has great influence, and he is very intelligent.

__________________
Aaron Josh Wright
Deerbrook Baptist Church, Humble Tx
New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary

This comment alone should show us this man is out of accord with God's word.

__________________

Norseman Moderator

R. Martin Snyder
1689er
http://www.puritanboard.com/blogs/puritancovenanter/

"Our object should not be to have scripture on our side but to be on the side of scripture; and however dear any sentiment may have become by being long entertained, so soon as it is seen to be contrary to the Bible, we must be prepared to abandon it without hesitation."
William Symington

Click to get:Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions?

NT Wright either fails to see the unfolding history of redemption and covenant theology or he purposely desires to lead protestants back to Rome. This is not new. William Pemble took on Robert Bellarmine in the early 1600's on the matter of justification. His work on the subject was reprinted by Soli Deo Gloria "The Justification of a Sinner" A treatise on justification by faith alone

__________________
Pepper
Assistant Pastor/Elder
Southern Baptist
Taylors, South Carolina

NT Wright's main problem is that he rejects imputed righteousness.

It's well known that NT Wright is seen as "one of the enemy" by both sides of the argument (or maybe "all sides"!). I have a strong feeling that he would roll his eyes and chuckle at most of the summaries given about his work, because they tend to reveal far more about the commentator than about Wright's ideas.

I respect Wright because he successfully avoids bitter sniping at his opponents, which is a thing that seems to infest this area of scholarship. So as well as appearing to be godly, he's extremely intelligent, in the top rank of genuine Pauline scholarship and so deserves to be read seriously. I would summarise Wright's contribution as "Yes, justification is what you think it is, but it's also so much more, so much richer than we have previously recognised and here's how..." I don't agree with all his ideas (I don't know enough to do so!) but they are certainly good food for thought.

__________________
Paul
No denomination, affiliated with FIEC
"Deliver me from worldly dispositions, for I am born from above and destined for glory" - Valley of Vision
"They think it strange that you do not plunge with them into the same flood of dissipation" - Peter

Paul,

Having read Wright, and having had lectures on NPP from a good seminary faculty, I am not certain that your remarks are either accurate or helpful. One can be well-tempered and still be quite in error on an important point(s) of doctrine. One can appear to be godly, can be intelligent in an academic sense, and can be a top rank scholar in within the eyes of many in the field of biblical scholarship, and still be quite in error. In fact, all of those characteristics can be said to have been true about many, many liberal scholars of the past who also denied the virgin birth, the divinity of the Scriptures, etc, etc.

You should be aware that Wright's views are not actually "well, yes, justification is 'all that', but it is also so much more". Wright is a subtle writer, but he clearly is attempting to overturn (through downplay/belittling, and other ways) the historic Protestant doctrine of justification and imputation when he is read as a whole.

That is not to say that he does not write well on other topics, but his ecumenical Anglican temperament, and liberal-leaning scholarship, taints too much of what he writes far too often to for him to be of use as a reliable theological source.

__________________
Adam J. Myer
Slated for the Jan. 10th Chaplains Basic Officer Leadership Course
Estacada Christian Church
Sandy, Oregon

Soli Deo Gloria

The New Perspective on Paul is not an offshoot of the Federal Vision, as it has been around far longer. Some say it had its beginnings with Krister Stendahl's article "The Apostle Paul and the Introspective Conscience of the West," published in the Harvard Theological Review in 1963. There were other forerunners of Sanders as well. One might point to W.D. Davies' book Paul and Rabbinic Judaism, as well as the much older three volume history of Judaism by George Foote Moore. But undoubtedly, the watershed was the publication of Sanders's book Paul and Palestinian Judaism in 1977.

The basic idea of the New Perspective on Paul is that the Judaism of the first century against which Paul was arguing was not a legalistic religion, but rather an exclusivistic religion. In other words, according to the NPP, Judaism's problem (according to Paul) was not legalism, but rather the fact that they could not tell what time it was (that the promises to Abraham were being fulfilled in Jesus Christ, and thus the promise could now go out to the Gentiles). They have several ways of saying this. One is "Paul's problem with Judaism is that it is not Christianity" (Sanders). Or, one could talk about faith as the now-appropriate badge of the true community of God (Dunn and Wright), that replaces circumcision (as if faith didn't always mark out the true Israel, even in the OT!).

This view of things means that Paul's problem was not a wrestling with his conscience as to whether he had done enough good works, and then coming to the realization that he needed an alien righteousness imputed to him (as Luther thought; NPP advocates claim that Luther was reading into Paul his own agonized conscience), but rather that the primary issue was how the promise made to Abraham about all the nations of the earth would be fulfilled in the Messiah, Jesus Christ. All NPP advocates reject the imputation of Christ's righteousness to the believer, even if some say they are not. This is because they do not eliminate all works from justification. Whenever Paul says that one is not justified by the works of the law, NPP advocates say that he is rejecting primarily (not exclusively) the badges of circumcision, dietary laws, things that marked out Jews as Jews. Paul was not rejecting all works from justification, but only some.

Justification itself is also redefined, especially in Wright. In his recent book (I'm about halfway through) on justification, Wright argues that there is a way past the impasse between old and new perspectives on Paul. That is to argue that justification is the solution both to the problem of Genesis 3 and the problem of Genesis 11, and that justification refers to a person being included in the family of Israel as headed up in Christ for the fulfillment of the promise made to Abraham. He does not (any longer!) deny that our sin problem is taken care of in justification, but how that happens is different. It is not clear, for instance, whether Wright holds to penal substitutionary atonement in the same way that the Reformed faith has always formulated it. He would definitely say, for instance, that the guilt of our sin is laid on Christ as our substitute. But he does not like the word "imputation." And he certainly does not advocate the imputation of Christ's righteousness to us in any way, shape or form, although he claims that what imputation was designed to say is something you get in his theology, just in another way. I do not agree with his assessment, and I also have trouble believing his descriptions of the old perspective when they are manifestly out in left field. This is something that Doug Wilson has actually showed pretty well in his review of Wright's book, and it comes out even more clearly in Guy Waters's review over on Reformation 21.

__________________
Rev. Lane Keister
Teaching Elder, PCA, North Dakota (working out of bounds in a CRC and an RCA church)
http://greenbaggins.wordpress.com
http://brahmsgreenglove.blogspot.com
http://accenttranslation.blogspot.com
Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions?

I agree with that. This area is all about ones array of emphases and their strengths. Wright advocates a different set of emphases than Luther, but I'm not aware that he contradicts Luther. In Westerholme's "Perspectives Old and New on Paul" he describes NT Wright's position: "Justication by faith is not itself Paul's gospel, though it is implied by that gospel." (page 182) That's why I said that for NT Wright, "What you think is right, but Paul's doctrine is much richer than that..." i.e. Justification by faith is a subset of Paul's doctrine of justification.

It seems to me that people have a healthy paranoia about the agenda of liberal theology and they group liberals together to make it easier. I'm not convinced that N.T. Wright belongs in the category "should be paranoid about their agenda even though we can't pinpoint grave explicit error". To put him on the "heresy shelf" suggests to me an unhealthy paranoia rather than a healthy one.

It goes without saying for me, that there is only one reliable theological source... Parts of other sources are interesting and inspiring to different degrees but they are all works of men.

I just have to say this was an excellent concise summary of the NPP.

__________________
Mark Maney
Edmonton Chinese Baptist Church
Master of Theological Studies
Master of Arts (Cross Cultural)
Trinity Western University, ACTS Seminaries
Edmonton, Alberta, Canada

What are your thoughts on Piper's book? Piper is my homeboy, but is he out of his league vs. Wright?

__________________
Pittsburgh, PA
New Covenant PCA, a church replant that you could read about here.
Co-Director of Children's Ministry
Bible Teacher - Trinity Christian School
M. Div Candidate at the Reformed Presbyterian Theological Seminary
Blogger, Relentless Grace

If you're basing your assessment of Wright off of that Westerholm quote, you should be aware that Wright intends something entirely different by the word "justification." Just because Wright talks about justification by faith being part of the gospel, this does not mean he has anything in common with either Luther or the Reformed understanding of the gospel. Even Pope Benedict could recently claim "We are justified by faith alone."

I can assure you that I don't group all liberals together; and I can certainly pinpoint "grave explicit error" in Wright with no paranoia present.

On most things, I think Piper nailed it on the head. I don't agree with Piper's definition of the dikaios word group, and I think Wright correctly called him on that one, although Wright's definition is no closer to the mark than Piper's. No lexicon agrees with either of them, as far as I can tell. But as to the mechanism of how justification works, Piper has it dead on. I am most disappointed that Wright did not return the courtesy extended to him by Piper (Piper let Wright see and critique the manuscript before publication; Wright didn't think Piper's work worth the bother of the same treatment, and who cares about publisher's deadlines?).

Well I've read a bit of Wright and the Westerholme summary of the different arguments. I can disagree easily with the other people in NPP, but Wright seems a bit different. It sounds like you are more acquainted with it than I am and I wouldn't presume to be an authority.

I'm aghast - would Wright not be able to say that?! Have you got a source for that?

without getting into the details of the debate per se (they are extensive and I feel most of us wouldn't be as qualified to comment on the intracasies therein), I was just wondering what might be the implication or consequences of Wright being right??

I just got his book and am going through it slowly. He makes the consistent point that our allegiance must always be to what Paul actually said, not to Calvin or Piper, or the Reformed tradition, as beloved as they may be.

Though it may seem unlikely, it is not impossible that later readings of Paul (such as Wright and others) would be more accurate. We can all observe in Church history where a view/interpretation is refined with the passage of time, not necessarily most accurate in its first few rounds.

Now, I'm not saying that I agree or can even begin to process the specifics of the debate, I'd just like to offer up some discussion regarding the implications of Wright's proposal for theology, Reformed tradition, and the Church (provided he's right).

what do you guys think? Is his view as dangerous for Christianity like many in the Reformed tradition think? What is at stake?

-----Added 6/30/2009 at 11:46:42 EST-----

Haven't read Wright's whole book yet, but allow me to add some comments in Wright's defence, just to keep things on a level playing field.
1. In terms of how Justification works, Wright argues that the reformed idea of imputation is no where explicitly stated in scripture; it's certainly not a central idea in Paul's thought, says Wright. I'm not sure if he's correct about that, but it's possible.
2. Regarding the trading of manuscripts, Wright excuses himself by citing publisher's deadlines and general busyness - hence not having the time to give his manuscript to Piper. I can certainly testify (subjectively) that so far, his comments are highly defensive and a bit sour. I expected there to be a little more graciousness in words. I'm guessing he's worked up about the whole thing.

We are blessed that Paul's letters shed a lot of light on the writings of Wright and other Pauline scholars, if we read them. Is that "bitter sniping"?

bryan
tampa, fl
.
.
.
.

__________________
Bryan
Deacon, PCA
Tampa, FL

I have always found it truly troubling how Wright interprets God's righteousness in 2 Corinthians 5 and his exposition of the early chapters in Romans concerning justification being something that looks like Covenant Community membership.

Another thing that has troubled me is how he views the Reformation and blames it for causing such disunity in the church in 'What St. Paul Really Said'.

One basic problem with Sander's PPJ is that he does not discuss a critical issue. Whatever second temple Judaism may or may not have been intended to be in God's plan, that's not the real situation the NT addresses, which is the contemporary state of 2TJ. And by the time of the NT it had clearly degenerated into a religion of works righteousness. As Paul tells us, the Jews "did not pursue righteousness by faith, but as if it were based on works" (Rom 9:32), a Scripture that Sanders does not mention.

__________________
In Christ's love and service

Mr. Tim Cunningham,
BMus. (Trombone Performance), University of Toronto
Dip. CS, Regent College, Vancouver
Member, First Baptist Church
Vancouver, BC
------------
"I once sat in darkness, and waited for the moon to rise.
I once sat in darkness, and waited for the son to shine.
I once sat in darkness, when all the light I'd waited for was gone.
Then Jesus came, and now the only true light, ever, shines in me."
– John Deacon -

Tim, the whole purpose of Sanders' book is to discuss Second Temple Judaism as it actually was. He examines three "sets" of literature from the period: Tannaitic material, the DSS and Apocalyptic Literature. The work has little (if any) concern for knowing what STJ was supposed to be. I think you may have this book confused with another work.

Just some quotes from N. T. Wright in his book 'What Saint Paul Really Said'.

In his new book does he change any of his stances or define them any differently concerning justification?

Please forgive the noviceness of this man, but one would think that justification is being in right standing of God. In my eyes, and please correct me if I am wrong, but this is about what God has done for His glory, not for covenants.

As I said, if I am wrong, please tell me.

__________________
William Price
Attending Mills Road Baptist Church, Houston, Texas

http://www.commandmentsandjudgment.com

The Reformed Voice Radio Broadcast

LBCF 1689