N.T. Wright responds to John Piper

timmopussycat · #41 (**permalink**) 07-02-2009, 10:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Prufrock

Quote:

Originally Posted by timmopussycat

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.

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.

Don't think I'm confused. Although it has been some years since I checked his work out, I remember Sanders wrote 2 books on topic (forget the title of the other one), neither of which discussed Rom. 9:32, a Scripture which must feature in any discussion of what 2TJ actually was in practice by Paul's day. If a leading student of one of the leading rabbi of the day says that contemporary 2TJ was, at bottom, a seeking righteousness by works, not faith, that statement needs to be discussed, and measured against contrary views. Paul may have seen deeper into the matter than his contemporaries, and realized that contemporary official Judaism, much like Roman Catholicism, while professing to be based on faith, was actually based on works. And since Paul is an inspired Apostle, his assertion that the Judaism of his day is a works religion establishes that point for us.

***greenbaggins*** · #42 (**permalink**) 07-02-2009, 10:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PuritanCovenanter

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?

Quote:

… ‘justification by works’ has nothing to do with individual Jews attempting a kind of proto-Pelagian pulling themselves up by their moral bootstraps, and everything to do with definition of the true Israel in advance of the final eschatological showdown. Justification in this setting, then, is not a matter of how someone enters the community of the true people of God, but of how you tell who belongs to that community, not least in the period of time before the eschatological event itself, when the matter will become public knowledge.

What Saint Paul Really Said, p.119.

Quote:

‘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 Sander’s 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.

What Saint Paul Really Said, p120

Quote:

Many Christians, both in the Reformation and in the counter-Reformation traditions, have done themselves and the church a great disservice by treating the doctrine of ‘justification’ as central to their debates, and by supposing that it describes that system by which people attain salvation. They have turned the doctrine into its opposite. Justification declares that all who believe in Jesus Christ belong at the same table, no matter what their cultural or racial differences.

What Saint Paul Really Said, p. 158-9

No, the standard Wrightian caricatures of the Reformed position remain (this is what makes his failure to give the ms to Piper even more infuriating), and his position has not changed much. There are a few things here and there which are nuanced a bit more, so the book is not a total waste of time to read if you want Wright's take on it.

yeutter · #43 (**permalink**) 08-10-2009, 11:56 PM

I found this review to be helpful.
http://www.churchsociety.org/churchm..._Editorial.pdf

CharlieJ · #44 (**permalink**) 08-11-2009, 08:16 AM

I haven't read a whole lot of Wright, but I did read Sanders and Dunn, and one of the problems that struck me is their rejection of the Pauline authorship of several canonical books, including Philippians. I don't know whether Wright treats Philippians or not, but if he doesn't, it seems like the argument is continuing without the two sides agreeing on the body of evidence.

This is unfortunate, because Philippians 3:8-11 is a major stumbling block to the NPP.

Quote:

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 may gain Christ 9 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- 10 that I may know him and the power of his resurrection, and may share his sufferings, becoming like him in his death, 11 that by any means possible I may attain the resurrection from the dead.

mybigGod · #45 (**permalink**) 09-29-2009, 03:19 PM

This controversy is not just about a perspective, but it is an attack at the heart of the gospel. What is a works gospel? Its a gospel that does not have imputed righteousness as the sole cause of having peace with God. If the gospel is no longer the gospel then who are we worshiping? The danger of believing something that is fundamentally flawed is that we create an image of a religious people who are seeking a god as a matter of focus that confuses their identity as members of Christ church. In an all out effort to get along they politicize religion, which is nothing more than is dead orthodoxy for the elect who choose to wait it out.

If salvation is imputed righteousness but is equal to Pauls Judaism then it no longer is the gospel.

awretchsavedbygrace · #46 (**permalink**) 09-29-2009, 03:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CharlieJ

Quote:

Originally Posted by AndyS

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ezekiel16

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

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.

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.

Buy it, and when your done with it, mail it to me.