N.T. Wright and the Reformed view of salvation

[DTK]

No, DTK did not answer any of my questions. Would you care to point out where he did? As far as I can tell, DTK ranted on about how people drift into heresy, and he claimed that Wright was a heretic, without ever backing it up. DTK didn't even claim to be answering my questions.

This is a prime example of how you missed what I said, and is yet another example of why you cannot be trusted to represent accurately what folk post. I missed the part where I claimed Wright was a heretic. Whatever thoughts on that I may have personally, I have kept to myself. I pointed you to a "drift" which evidently you found very much to your disliking. So I think you're going to have to show me my own language; and when you do, I think it's going to be quite revealing.

You've also accused some of us as being less than courteous because we didn't jump through your requested hoops. Personally, I don't think that was needed in order to show that Wright has attempted to redefine justification. I did produce from Wright's own book, which I have, his own language to this effect. Maybe he has since repudiated his new definition of the meaning of justification. But until I see it, I think I'll have to abide by what he said in his book, What Saint Paul Really Said, because I quoted what Wright really wrote.

Cheers,
DTK

 

[biblelighthouse]

Originally posted by DTK
You've also accused some of us as being less than courteous because we didn't jump through your requested hoops. Personally, I don't think that was needed in order to show that Wright has attempted to redefine justification.

This is a prime example of the fact that you entirely missed the point of my original post.

I never asked you to demonstrate that Wright totally redefines the word "justification". Far the the contrary, I fully granted that he does just that!

Rather, my argument basically went like this:

1) N.T. Wright basically affirms an orthodox view of salvation. But he does *not* use the *label* of "justification" for it. Rather, he uses a different label. Nevertheless, the *doctrine itself* is retained.

2) While *retaining* the core doctrine of salvation (via a different label), N.T. Wright goes on to use the word "justification" to talk about something *other* than salvation.

Is that unclear? Is there anything difficult to understand about what I am suggesting?

I would prefer for you to address the question I asked, rather than the one I did not ask.

Once again, here is a simple question:
If Wright retains an orthodox view of salvation, then why call him unorthodox, just because he uses a different *label* for it than you and I do?

 

[DTK]

I am going to ask you one more time to cite where I called Wright a heretic. If you can't produce that quote, then I'm asking you for a retraction. If you fail to produce it again, I am requesting the moderators to intervene, because this is a clear example of how you misrepresent people here as "bashers" for disagreeing with you.

Cheers,
DTK

 

[AdamM]

Joseph, I agree with Wayne that it is unfair to assume Wright's critics here and elsewhere haven't read him. Other then presumptive regeneration, no topic gets as much action on the board and I'm sure by doing a bit of homework and looking through the archives, you will find any question about Wright has been answered several times over.

For what it's worth, I don't think anyone here is claiming Wright is a heretic or that everything he writes (even on the subject of justification) is wrong (I certianly don't think so). There are plenty of places where Wright is quite orthodox and perhaps even helpful, but you asked the question if Wright was *Reformed* in his soteriology and I think the obvious answer is no, if "Reformed" is defined by the Reformed confessional documents. If you read Wright there are many places where he juxtaposes his views (usually prefaced by something like "scholarship of the last 200 years") against the "old perspective", so the claim that he isn't Reformed as defined by the Reformed confessions should hardly be controversial. You don't have to read far into Wright to find that he believes that the Reformed tradition has largely missed the primary meaning of justification in the Bible. I think you will agree that that's not exactly a nit picky, little issue.

If you think as I do that WSC Q. 33. accurately captures the essence of the Bible's teaching on justification, then you are at serious odds with Wright. In Wright's view of justification, individual soteriolgy (although he would say it is true) is at the level of a secondary benefit, while obviously in the Reformed confessions it is primary.

There are others points that can be made about imputation (which he rejects) and his construct of how present justification relates to future justification, but again getting back to the original question asking if Wright is "Reformed" the answer is no and certainly those swallowing Wright feathers and all shouldn't be serving as officers in confessional Reformed denominations.

Q. 33. What is justification?
A. Justification is an act of God's free grace, wherein he pardoneth all our sins, and accepteth us as righteous in his sight, only for the righteousness of Christ imputed to us, and received by faith alone.

 

[C. Matthew McMahon]

{Moderator}

Jospeh,

You need to answer DTK.

 

[biblelighthouse]

Originally posted by fredtgreco
You know, Joseph, I am starting to get really tired with your demands. I don't have the time or inclination to make a detailed refutation of the latest quotes of the Uberbishop.

Fred, I did not make any demands of you. I asked a question that doesn't seem like it should be so difficult to answer. Nevertheless, if it really would be so time-consuming to answer my original question, I certainly didn't twist your arm (or anyone else's) to "demand" an answer.

On the contrary, I only expect someone to respond to my post if:
1) they want to respond
2) they have time to respond

If you didn't have the time to respond to my post, then you didn't have to respond to my post. It's that simple.

Originally posted by fredtgreco
you seem to be completely unwilling to learn the basics of accepted Protestant/Reformed soteriology before demanding in-depth interaction with the Uber bishop.

On the contrary, I am already well aware of double imputation, the ordo salutis, and a number of the Biblical texts which defend the Reformed view of soteriology.

Originally posted by fredtgreco
Wright does not believe that the Bible is inerrant.

If you have time, I would appreciate it if you would back up this statement. I have read N.T. Wright *himself* say that every syllable of Scripture is inspired, and demands our utmost attention and submission. So what you are telling me is diametrically opposed to what I have read he himself say.

Originally posted by fredtgreco
Wright has also interpreted the "Biblical" language of the texts to determine that women may be elders in Christ's Church. That gives insight into his exegesis.

I did not know this. And I agree that such a thing is troubling indeed. I dont' think it bears any weight whatsoever on his soteriology, but I do agree that such a thing would render his exegesis questionable.

Originally posted by fredtgreco
Here is just one sample of what you could have found by simply typing in "Wright" into the search box with the forum limit of this forum:

To my memory, I have *already* read those quotes you gave. But none of them answer the question I posed in this particular thread.

I never debated whether Wright means something different by the word "justification" than you and I do. Rather, I granted that from the beginning. However, from what I can tell, he *retains* an orthodox view of salvation, and just calls it by a different *label*. What he terms the "call", you and I term "justification". So why get so bent out of shape over a label, if the underlying doctrine remains orthodox?



Fred, you and some other guys have suggested that I need to read hundreds of pages of books and articles before I ask questions on here. If that's really the type of forum you are trying to build here, then the forum rules really need to be changed. --- Silly me, I thought I could safely come on here to make suggestions, ask questions, learn, and discuss things. No one told me that I had to become an expert in any given doctrine before posting on this forum. I did not realize that "little guys" like me were supposed to avoid discussion until reading 1000 pages or so.

 

[biblelighthouse]

Originally posted by DTK
I am going to ask you one more time to cite where I called Wright a heretic. If you can't produce that quote, then I'm asking you for a retraction. If you fail to produce it again, I am requesting the moderators to intervene, because this is a clear example of how you misrepresent people here as "bashers" for disagreeing with you.

I freely admit that you never precisely stated the words, "N.T. Wright is a heretic."

However, you did say this:

But the fact is, when the new perspective(s) theologians begin to say the Reformers all got it wrong, how can that not be a rejection of the "Reformed doctrine of how a person receives salvation?" Even heretics admit that they don't see how it is a "big deal" to say that "those in my camp all got it wrong before me." But the fact is that others do see it as a "big deal." Wright redefines justification...

First, you draw a parallel between "new perspective(s) theologians" and "heretics". Then you proceed to mention Wright's name.


DTK, if you honestly had no intention to use your words to construe N.T. Wright as a heretic, then I misunderstood you. But to me, your words were just as good as if you had said, "N.T. Wright is a heretic." I had no intention to misrepresent you.

If you do not believe he is a heretic, then I am glad to hear that. Apparently I understood your words incorrectly.

 

[biblelighthouse]

Guys, I have just spent way over an hour engaging in discussion that is not even pertinent to this thread. I frankly do not have the time for this. And since I don't see any end in sight, I guess I had better just stop now.

I do not agree with N.T. Wright on justification. But I see evidence suggesting to me that Wright has still retained an orthodox view of salvation itself. I was hoping to see some real discussion and interaction around this topic, but apparently hardly anyone is interested.

Instead, Wayne Wiley and Fred Greco tell me that I should read a whole lot more on the subject before posting here, while Scott Bushey tells me that I should not be reading anything on this subject at all.

And instead of just answering my simple question, everybody ends up lambasting *me* because I haven't read what they think I should read, or because I have "misrepresented" something they said, etc. So I end up spending a huge amount of time responding to a stack of things that don't even belong in this conversation (in my opinion).

In short, I think this thread was derailed almost from the beginning, and that very little good is coming of it. No one cares to answer my question, and I am just sitting here wasting my time.


So, moderators, please be kind enough to just close this thread down. I give up. Since you don't want discussion on here, except among those who already have read in-depth on the subject, I'll just be quiet for a while. Since my question remains unanswered, it's not doing me any good to post in this part of the forum anyway.

 

[C. Matthew McMahon]

I don't want to be misunderstood - so I'll try to be as clear as possible.

Wright is a heretic. A heresiarch. He will forever burn under God's righteous wrath and under the solemn and scornful gaze of the Lamb of God for all eternity if he does not change his theological views before he dies, or rather, his lack of good theology! He is a false teacher, and one of the most influential heretics of the century because he affected people at the seminary level - where pastors are trained and scholars born - and has infected a good number of churches, right down to the layman and youth of the day.

Here are some reasons why:

"But the righteousness they have will not be God´s own righteousness. That makes no sense at all. God´s own righteousness is his covenant faithfulness, because of which he will (Israel hopes) vindicate her." Wright, What Saint Paul Really Said, Page 99.

Nonsense. Not only does this deny ALL of the OT and NT concepts surrounding what is means to be justified in relationship to the Righteousness of God, but Wright is openly admitting he does not agree with the exegetical position of the church since it inception. Wright is completely rewriting what it means to "be righteous" before God since he misunderstands what 1) righteousness is, and 2) how believers are made righteous by God, and 3) how the Law reflects the character of God and sets the standard as to how this righteousness is to be exemplified and obtained.

Wright believes (page 123-124) that righteousness is merely God's "covenant faithfulness" (a term taken to great lengths by the AA men to reinterpret salvation itself. In this way, he follows James Dunn on his horrible exegetical work in reinterpreting Romans, and Heikki Raisajen's work on reinterpreting what he calls the Apostle Paul's "absurd conclusions." (cf. Heikki, Paul and the Law, pages 11-12).

You also want to keep in mind that all the proponents of the NPP are not trying to set forth a systematic theology, or even good exegesis. What they are trying to do is what Guy Waters rightly calls a "descriptive project." (Waters, Justification and the New Perspectives on Paul, p. 119). Wright, though, is trying to take the NPP in a practical venue that the others simply created as theory and scholarship (at least as far as liberalism would have it).

Remember that Wright is coming at the Bible not as an exegete, but as interpreting it as a "story." Thus, it is impossible for Wright to be objective - that's not his point. When you get the story right, according to him, you will get theology right after the fact. (Wright, The NT and the People of God, page 79).

God's righteousness is not an alien righteousness that is imputed by way of the Mediator's work (completely denying the imputation of the active righteousness of Christ) but merely of the promises of God's trustworthiness and faithfulness to do things He says he will do. This completely rewrites not only what righteousness is, but also how it is transmitted. Not only, then, is Wright theologically ridiculous, but he also gets the story wrong at the same time.

Wright does not see obedience as meritorious. He thinks, along with the other AA and NPP scholars and pastors, that medieval ideas have crept into the church, whereby they should be expelled (and in this case the Gospel along with it). (Cf. Wright, Romans, page 467).

In case you've missed it in his writings, then, he also overturns justification completely on its head and creates some incredible "story" out of what "he thinks" justification means, or "What Saint Paul Really Said." Wright does NOT think justification is being reckoned righteously before God by the active/passive imputation of Christ's righteousness given tot he elect by way of Faith and God's declarative judicial forensic act - oh no. Rather, he thinks it is "whether Jewish Christians and Gentile Christians can share table fellowship." (Wright, Romans, page 458).

Now, if this is not the epitome of stupidity in "explaining" the Gospel, I don't know what is. It is denying, straightway, justification, which makes Wright, as I said, a HERETIC.

He says, "Justification, at the last, will be on the basis of performance, not possession." (Wright, Romans, 440).

Present justification for Wright is not justification is ANY Reformed sense, or biblical exegetical sense for that matter. It is simply the nonsensical idea of "covenant faithfulness". In the future, God will look at believers covenantal faithfulness and then determine, in His final judgment of all things "to be considered" if it is in line with a complete "covenantal obedience." But remember, this has nothing to do with King Jesus. This is Romanism repackaged.

Wright throws out the death of Christ and justification as soteriological. Instead, because he redefines theology by looking at the Bible as the story of God's covenantal faithfulness, he sees it all as the believer's acquittal process at the end time. But he definitely throws away the active/passive imputation of Christ's righteousness to the elect. (Wright, Romans, 529)

So what really does Wright "believe in" to be saved? Covenant Status. Faith = covenant status. If you are set with a covenant sign, then you are a member of the covenant faithful, and have covenant faithfulness. That is why NPP and AA "theology" always gives way to the ideas surrounding paedocommunion.

"[Faith] is the God-given badge of membership, neither more nor less." (Wright, Saint Paul, 160) Wright is so akin to this, that he thinks that Roman Catholics and Protestants should be having "Eucharistic fellowship" together (cf. Wright, Saint Paul, 159)

Heresy!

For a good summary of Wright's nonsensical, anti-Christian and heretical position, read Guy Water's 9 points in his work "Justification and the New Perspectives on Paul, pages 148-149.

Joseph, you are being plagued by this man who is taking down many young in the faith to hell with him by his heretical views which basically gut the Gospel of any power, spit on Christ's work, and destroy the orthodox doctrine of justification as it has been taught throughout the history of the church.

[Edited on 12-27-2005 by C. Matthew McMahon]

 

[DTK]

DTK, if you honestly had no intention to use your words to construe N.T. Wright as a heretic, then I misunderstood you. But to me, your words were just as good as if you had said, "N.T. Wright is a heretic." I had no intention to misrepresent you.

If you do not believe he is a heretic, then I am glad to hear that. Apparently I understood your words incorrectly.

My point was to point to a drift in Wright. You misunderstood that from the very first because you took strong exception to my original response to you. You then took your misunderstanding and began to interpret my words from your misunderstanding. You see, what you wrote was a misunderstanding whether you had any intention of misunderstanding me or not. My point was and is that we are seeing a drift that leads to heresy. But you got your feathers ruffled, and then perpetrated your misunderstanding by ascribing to me something I never said.

What I believe about Wright personally, I purposefully omitted and still do. It is a drift in a man's theology that we are witnessing. Since you failed to read that post accurately (and this is an honest question), why should we trust your reading/perception of Wright (or anyone else for that matter) when you respond to them here? You see, I think this shows a very myopic tendency on your perception here (to see what you want to see), at least when it comes to treating subjects of theology.

So, please don't tell me you were trying to convey my intention, because you claimed I said something that I never said. You see, what I believe is not what you claimed on my behalf. You didn't claim that I believed something, your claim was that I claimed Wright is a heretic. I would be grateful if you would refrain from addressing your perception of my "belief," and address specifically what you claimed I claimed. If I did not claim that, I would still be grateful for your retraction to the effect that I never claimed any such thing. Because what you claimed for me is irrelevant to your perception of my belief.

Cheers,
DTK

 

[biblelighthouse]

DTK,

I already freely admitted that you never actually said the words, "N.T. Wright is a heretic."




Moderators, would you please shut down this thread? We are wasting a lot of time, and it doesn't look like we are gaining much of anything for it.

 

[WrittenFromUtopia]

I must humbly plead with other laymen on this board to "check yourself" when you speak to ordained elders in the Church of the Lord Jesus Christ. They deserve a lot more respect and charity than is being given by many on this board lately.

 

[DTK]

Originally posted by biblelighthouse
DTK,

I already freely admitted that you never actually said the words, "N.T. Wright is a heretic."

Personally, I don't think it's been a waste of time. It has been tedious, but not a waste of time. There is a more important lesson here for you yourself to learn if you will have the heart to bear with us. And I trust that in the future, you will exemplify more caution in how you represent what others actually say.

Yes, this thread did not go in the direction you wanted to see it go, but you already had a precommitment to what you wanted to see rather than what others see in Wright. I see in him a very clear and distinct theological drift, and a very carefully articulated ecumenical agenda that is either shared with the former and/or backed by the latter.

DTK

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

Originally posted by puritancovenanter
Precisely Evie.

I would like to read someones critique of this paper. It uses language or what appears to be exegesis of the Greek. I don't know how to respond to it because I can't argue against what he says concerning the Greek. I don't buy what he says but I would like to know if its discussion concerning the Greek is credible. I have heard others discuss this passage but not refute his understanding of the Greek text.

Anyone know where I can find a critique of this paper?

*BUMP* again Pastor King, Can you help me with this?

posted by Fred
The fact is, that Wright does not believe that the Bible is inerrant. No less a "TR" than Andrew Sandlin has drawn that conclusion as well.

I have heard this also. Fred can you direct me to a reference for my benefit of passing the info along in a good solid way.

[Edited on 12-27-2005 by puritancovenanter]

 

[Ex Nihilo]

Originally posted by puritancovenanter

I have heard this also. Fred can you direct me to a reference for my benefit of passing the info along in a good solid way.

I don't think that Wright does believe in the specific inerrancy of the Bible (though his view of its inspiration and authority is certainly much higher than a liberal's). This is one legitimate charge, I believe. Here's an article in which Wright explains his views of Scripture:

http://www.ntwrightpage.com/Wright_Bible_Authoritative.htm

 

[Ex Nihilo]

I have no intention of reviving this thread, which I think has been even less productive than might have been expected from previous Wright threads on this board. However, there is one factual issue that I think needs to be addressed:

Mr. Greco quoted from an old thread in which Contra_Mundum said:

Originally posted by Contra_Mundum
Wright is committed to libertarian free-will. So that's why he thinks the condemned have been given this chance to see what the verdict "in the middle of history is" and choose which side they want to end up on. Wright can't seem to comprehend Luther's, and the Reformed's view of Paul's argument. He certainly doesn't appreciate its power. And for the Reformed's stance, Wright's substitue arrangement is equally incomprehensible, given the facts.

Wright is not committed to libertarian free will. In fact, he rather explicitly affirms that God elects some and not others. (I know this from the commentary in Ephesians in Paul for Everyone: The Prison Letters, but I'm sure he says similar things elsewhere.) He considers himself a Calvinist, and while I agree that he is not a good Calvinist, he still holds to rather Calvinistic views on this particular issue of the role of the individual's choice in salvation. Here's what N.T. Wright himself says about the way salvation comes about:

From: http://www.ntwrightpage.com/Wright_New_Perspectives.pdf

[M]y understanding of how Paul supposed someone became a Christian is, I think, basically orthodox and indeed reformed. God takes the initiative, based on his foreknowledge; the preached word, through which the Spirit is at work, is the effective agent; belief in the gospel, that is, believing submission to Jesus as the risen Lord, is the direct result. My central point is that this isn't what Paul is referring to when he speaks of 'justification'. But the substance of what reformed theology, unlike Paul, has referred to by means of that word remains. Faith is not something someone does as a result of which God decides to grant them a new status or privilege. Becoming a Christian, in its initial moment, is not based on anything that a person has acquired by birth or achieved by merit. Faith is itself the first fruit of the Spirit's call. And those thus called, to return to Philippians 11.6, can be sure that the one who began a good work in them will complete it at the day of Christ.

This doesn't sound like libertarian free will to me, whatever its other flaws may be.

Originally posted by C. Matthew McMahon

Wright is a heretic. A heresiarch. He will forever burn under God's righteous wrath and under the solemn and scornful gaze of the Lamb of God for all eternity if he does not change his theological views before he dies, or rather, his lack of good theology!

With all due respect, Dr. McMahon, if we are saved by belief in good theology beyond our belief that Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who was crucified and resurrected, is Lord, then I would have to fear for my own salvation. If Wright is going to go to hell for what he believes when he affirms all of this, I wonder what exactly is necessary for salvation. To move this out of the hypothetical, however, I indeed do not fear for my own salvation (nor that of Wright's, if he believes what he says he believes), and I wonder how you can interpret Sola Fide to assert that one must have faith in all the right doctrines in order to be saved... Or how many? Must one have 70% good doctrine to be saved? 50%? Or just faith in Jesus Christ?

[Edited on 12-27-2005 by Ex Nihilo]

 

[Saiph]

Originally posted by C. Matthew McMahon
I don't want to be misunderstood - so I'll try to be as clear as possible.

Wright is a heretic. A heresiarch. He will forever burn under God's righteous wrath and under the solemn and scornful gaze of the Lamb of God for all eternity if he does not change his theological views before he dies, or rather, his lack of good theology! He is a false teacher, and one of the most influential heretics of the century because he affected people at the seminary level - where pastors are trained and scholars born - and has infected a good number of churches, right down to the layman and youth of the day.

Given the reasons you posted for this unscrupulous and insolent assertion it would follow that you also would condemn every theologian before Luther to the same retribution ? ? ?

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

Originally posted by Saiph

Originally posted by C. Matthew McMahon
I don't want to be misunderstood - so I'll try to be as clear as possible.

Wright is a heretic. A heresiarch. He will forever burn under God's righteous wrath and under the solemn and scornful gaze of the Lamb of God for all eternity if he does not change his theological views before he dies, or rather, his lack of good theology! He is a false teacher, and one of the most influential heretics of the century because he affected people at the seminary level - where pastors are trained and scholars born - and has infected a good number of churches, right down to the layman and youth of the day.

Given the reasons you posted for this unscrupulous and insolent assertion it would follow that you also would condemn every theologian before Luther to the same retribution ? ? ?

Are you saying non of the people before Luther believed in justification by faith alone?

 

[Saiph]

Are you saying non of the people before Luther believed in justification by faith alone?

Not that they did not believe in Christ by "faith alone", but that I have not found any reference before Luther on doctrines of justification and sola fide in the systematic formulation of the doctrine as defined by Luther himself.

I would welcome others to share them if so.



[Edited on 12-27-2005 by Saiph]

 

[fredtgreco]

Originally posted by puritancovenanter

Originally posted by puritancovenanter
Precisely Evie.

I would like to read someones critique of this paper. It uses language or what appears to be exegesis of the Greek. I don't know how to respond to it because I can't argue against what he says concerning the Greek. I don't buy what he says but I would like to know if its discussion concerning the Greek is credible. I have heard others discuss this passage but not refute his understanding of the Greek text.

Anyone know where I can find a critique of this paper?

*BUMP* again Pastor King, Can you help me with this?

posted by Fred
The fact is, that Wright does not believe that the Bible is inerrant. No less a "TR" than Andrew Sandlin has drawn that conclusion as well.

I have heard this also. Fred can you direct me to a reference for my benefit of passing the info along in a good solid way.

[Edited on 12-27-2005 by puritancovenanter]

The website which had all the relevant quotes, including those from The Challenge of Jesus: Rediscovering Who Jesus Was and Is which had significant quotes in which Wright wrote that Jesus was not aware of His divinity, is down. I will search for another webpage that has it.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

Originally posted by fredtgreco

The website which had all the relevant quotes, including those from The Challenge of Jesus: Rediscovering Who Jesus Was and Is which had significant quotes in which Wright wrote that Jesus was not aware of His divinity, is down. I will search for another webpage that has it.

I heard John Armstrong say this at a conference here many years ago. I took issue with it then.

Thanks for trying to help me Fred.

[Edited on 12-27-2005 by puritancovenanter]

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Originally posted by Ex Nihilo

Originally posted by Contra_Mundum
Wright is committed to libertarian free-will. So that's why he thinks the condemned have been given this chance to see what the verdict "in the middle of history is" and choose which side they want to end up on. Wright can't seem to comprehend Luther's, and the Reformed's view of Paul's argument. He certainly doesn't appreciate its power. And for the Reformed's stance, Wright's substitue arrangement is equally incomprehensible, given the facts.

Wright is not committed to libertarian free will. In fact, he rather explicitly affirms that God elects some and not others. .... He considers himself a Calvinist, and while I agree that he is not a good Calvinist, he still holds to rather Calvinistic views on this particular issue of the role of the individual's choice in salvation. Here's what N.T. Wright himself says about the way salvation comes about:

From: http://www.ntwrightpage.com/Wright_New_Perspectives.pdf

[M]y understanding of how Paul supposed someone became a Christian is, I think, basically orthodox and indeed reformed. God takes the initiative, based on his foreknowledge; the preached word, through which the Spirit is at work, is the effective agent; belief in the gospel, that is, believing submission to Jesus as the risen Lord, is the direct result. My central point is that this isn't what Paul is referring to when he speaks of 'justification'. But the substance of what reformed theology, unlike Paul, has referred to by means of that word remains. Faith is not something someone does as a result of which God decides to grant them a new status or privilege. Becoming a Christian, in its initial moment, is not based on anything that a person has acquired by birth or achieved by merit. Faith is itself the first fruit of the Spirit's call. And those thus called, to return to Philippians 11.6, can be sure that the one who began a good work in them will complete it at the day of Christ.

Evie,
If by "libertarian free will" you are thinking of free will that can "take initiative" under any circumstances, I can only say I was not thinking in such narrow terms by my use of the term. Philosophers can draw fine distinctions through the sand of freewill positions, but my distinctions are going to be the big ones: bondage (in Luther's sense) and libertarian. I do not deny liberty in the Bible's sense, but it is a conditional liberty with limits fixed accoding to nature. And based on my reading of Wright, I think he is Arminian. You may have a different perception, and have read more of him, and be more correct than I am. Fine. I can live with that, but I'll need more data to be persuaded.

The line of your's I bolded, that position (in those words) will not be denied by an Arminian. What we want to know is: what is the basis for the election? Why are some elected and others not?

Let me interact now with Wright's words above:
1) "became a Christian" How does Wright define "Christian" here? Does he mean what the AA Conference has declared, the FV theology? Does he mean "covenant objectivity" in the sense that has recently been promoted? If so, then he and I are starting off speaking about different things altogether. But to press on...

2) "my understanding...is...indeed reformed" Does Wright mean reformed in the sense that Anglicans regularly use the phrase, as a synonym for Protestant, that is in a sense that embraces and includes Arminianism? Even Archbishop Laud could have been "reformed" by some such definition.

3) "takes the initiative" Does Wright mean salvation is thoroughly monergistic, from start to finish?

4) "based on his foreknowledge" Well, this is of course Scriptural language, and not subject to dispute, right? But I think that in the context of explanation of his influential views, it would be helpful if he would spell out the definition of foreknowledge--forelove? (calvinistic), or foresight? (arminian).

5) "belief...is the direct result [of the preached Word]" Is the faith he is speaking of something "excited" in them by the Spirit and the Word, or is it something that is itself gracious?

Wright is not getting any clearer by this presentation. This is a public opportunity, but he threads the needle and avoids getting pinned down to doctrinal specifics. Why? I think he does not want to be "systematized". By only using "biblical terminology" he comes off as both pious and above the "17th century stereotypical arguments."

6) "this isn't what Paul is referring to when he speaks of 'justification'" Well, so far he hasn't described justification according to Reformed teaching either, so he seems to me to be attacking a straw-man here. Where in all this verbiage is a discussion of the forensic Reformed doctrine of justification? He hasn't even mentioned it. We would say that "becoming a Christian" involves justification. It is more-or-less central to the ORDO SALUTIS, a kind of preliminary climax, to be followed by additional blessings. But most of what Wright has described up to this point we would place under the category of "Effectual Calling" and possibly "Conversion".

7) "But the substance..." Reformed terminology is set in opposition to Reformed theology. But we are encouraged to suppose that (minus the exegetical support that Wright wants to apply in completely different directions) the "substance" of Reformed theological understanding remains. But are we really left with the robust theology we once had, before Wright reinterpreted core texts? Of course not.

If there was a stronger way to make the case, I think Wright would have done that as well. But he doesn't really think in Reformed theological categories, so he isn't interested in reestablishing Reformed principles of imputation on some other basis. In fact, he fairly well denies the doctrine of imputation period. He throws us a bone here and there and says, "There you go; make something with these scattered few verses that might speak to your constructs, if you can. But leave my ecclesiastical justification alone.

8) "Faith is not... [with] result... God decides..." Again, I think that someone who has already claimed to believe in "divine initiative" has no problem using this language, even if they ultimately believe in something completely different by it that we do. Wright is not embarrased to be called an eccumenicist. He is very open about it. This kind of language can be interpreted in a friendly way by the Reformed, Lutherans, Arminians (broad evangelicals), and even ROME. Why should we be satisfied with statements that do not pin a man's theology down?

9) "Becoming a Christian, in its initial moment, is not ... birth ... [or] merit" So, staying a Christian has to do with merit? Yes, I do believe that is the direction Wright takes this point...

10) "Phil. 1:6" His final sentence speaks of subjective assurance that the believer "can" have. And Paul is certain;y encouraging Christians to rejoice in such assurance. But didactically, he is also teaching that What God began, GOD will finish. Paul is speaking monergistically. I am not at all sure that Wright is.



In conclusion, I suppose that you and others might say that this is tendentious reading. Why not read the man charitably? Do you have to read him picking up the negatives in every line? But we have to go back and ask why does the question arise? Isn't it because the man is unorthodox in many respects? Haven't his own writings opened him up for criticism? He has earned our skepticism; he is not the hapless victim.

I will not say whether the man is born again or not. I'm glad many people's faith is better than their theology. I think even the pope can go to heaven... as long as he is a poor Romanist. And I think there is a much better hope for Arminians, even Anglican ones, because more of the true faith is out in the open among them. Anyway, that's the way I see it. Cheers...

 

[Ex Nihilo]

Originally posted by Contra_Mundum

Originally posted by Ex Nihilo

Originally posted by Contra_Mundum
Wright is committed to libertarian free-will. So that's why he thinks the condemned have been given this chance to see what the verdict "in the middle of history is" and choose which side they want to end up on. Wright can't seem to comprehend Luther's, and the Reformed's view of Paul's argument. He certainly doesn't appreciate its power. And for the Reformed's stance, Wright's substitue arrangement is equally incomprehensible, given the facts.

Wright is not committed to libertarian free will. In fact, he rather explicitly affirms that God elects some and not others. .... He considers himself a Calvinist, and while I agree that he is not a good Calvinist, he still holds to rather Calvinistic views on this particular issue of the role of the individual's choice in salvation. Here's what N.T. Wright himself says about the way salvation comes about:

From: http://www.ntwrightpage.com/Wright_New_Perspectives.pdf

[M]y understanding of how Paul supposed someone became a Christian is, I think, basically orthodox and indeed reformed. God takes the initiative, based on his foreknowledge; the preached word, through which the Spirit is at work, is the effective agent; belief in the gospel, that is, believing submission to Jesus as the risen Lord, is the direct result. My central point is that this isn't what Paul is referring to when he speaks of 'justification'. But the substance of what reformed theology, unlike Paul, has referred to by means of that word remains. Faith is not something someone does as a result of which God decides to grant them a new status or privilege. Becoming a Christian, in its initial moment, is not based on anything that a person has acquired by birth or achieved by merit. Faith is itself the first fruit of the Spirit's call. And those thus called, to return to Philippians 11.6, can be sure that the one who began a good work in them will complete it at the day of Christ.

Evie,
If by "libertarian free will" you are thinking of free will that can "take initiative" under any circumstances, I can only say I was not thinking in such narrow terms by my use of the term. Philosophers can draw fine distinctions through the sand of freewill positions, but my distinctions are going to be the big ones: bondage (in Luther's sense) and libertarian. I do not deny liberty in the Bible's sense, but it is a conditional liberty with limits fixed accoding to nature. And based on my reading of Wright, I think he is Arminian. You may have a different perception, and have read more of him, and be more correct than I am. Fine. I can live with that, but I'll need more data to be persuaded.

The line of your's I bolded, that position (in those words) will not be denied by an Arminian. What we want to know is: what is the basis for the election? Why are some elected and others not?

Let me interact now with Wright's words above:
1) "became a Christian" How does Wright define "Christian" here? Does he mean what the AA Conference has declared, the FV theology? Does he mean "covenant objectivity" in the sense that has recently been promoted? If so, then he and I are starting off speaking about different things altogether. But to press on...

2) "my understanding...is...indeed reformed" Does Wright mean reformed in the sense that Anglicans regularly use the phrase, as a synonym for Protestant, that is in a sense that embraces and includes Arminianism? Even Archbishop Laud could have been "reformed" by some such definition.

3) "takes the initiative" Does Wright mean salvation is thoroughly monergistic, from start to finish?

4) "based on his foreknowledge" Well, this is of course Scriptural language, and not subject to dispute, right? But I think that in the context of explanation of his influential views, it would be helpful if he would spell out the definition of foreknowledge--forelove? (calvinistic), or foresight? (arminian).

5) "belief...is the direct result [of the preached Word]" Is the faith he is speaking of something "excited" in them by the Spirit and the Word, or is it something that is itself gracious?

Wright is not getting any clearer by this presentation. This is a public opportunity, but he threads the needle and avoids getting pinned down to doctrinal specifics. Why? I think he does not want to be "systematized". By only using "biblical terminology" he comes off as both pious and above the "17th century stereotypical arguments."

6) "this isn't what Paul is referring to when he speaks of 'justification'" Well, so far he hasn't described justification according to Reformed teaching either, so he seems to me to be attacking a straw-man here. Where in all this verbiage is a discussion of the forensic Reformed doctrine of justification? He hasn't even mentioned it. We would say that "becoming a Christian" involves justification. It is more-or-less central to the ORDO SALUTIS, a kind of preliminary climax, to be followed by additional blessings. But most of what Wright has described up to this point we would place under the category of "Effectual Calling" and possibly "Conversion".

7) "But the substance..." Reformed terminology is set in opposition to Reformed theology. But we are encouraged to suppose that (minus the exegetical support that Wright wants to apply in completely different directions) the "substance" of Reformed theological understanding remains. But are we really left with the robust theology we once had, before Wright reinterpreted core texts? Of course not.

If there was a stronger way to make the case, I think Wright would have done that as well. But he doesn't really think in Reformed theological categories, so he isn't interested in reestablishing Reformed principles of imputation on some other basis. In fact, he fairly well denies the doctrine of imputation period. He throws us a bone here and there and says, "There you go; make something with these scattered few verses that might speak to your constructs, if you can. But leave my ecclesiastical justification alone.

8) "Faith is not... [with] result... God decides..." Again, I think that someone who has already claimed to believe in "divine initiative" has no problem using this language, even if they ultimately believe in something completely different by it that we do. Wright is not embarrased to be called an eccumenicist. He is very open about it. This kind of language can be interpreted in a friendly way by the Reformed, Lutherans, Arminians (broad evangelicals), and even ROME. Why should we be satisfied with statements that do not pin a man's theology down?

9) "Becoming a Christian, in its initial moment, is not ... birth ... [or] merit" So, staying a Christian has to do with merit? Yes, I do believe that is the direction Wright takes this point...

10) "Phil. 1:6" His final sentence speaks of subjective assurance that the believer "can" have. And Paul is certain;y encouraging Christians to rejoice in such assurance. But didactically, he is also teaching that What God began, GOD will finish. Paul is speaking monergistically. I am not at all sure that Wright is.



In conclusion, I suppose that you and others might say that this is tendentious reading. Why not read the man charitably? Do you have to read him picking up the negatives in every line? But we have to go back and ask why does the question arise? Isn't it because the man is unorthodox in many respects? Haven't his own writings opened him up for criticism? He has earned our skepticism; he is not the hapless victim.

I will not say whether the man is born again or not. I'm glad many people's faith is better than their theology. I think even the pope can go to heaven... as long as he is a poor Romanist. And I think there is a much better hope for Arminians, even Anglican ones, because more of the true faith is out in the open among them. Anyway, that's the way I see it. Cheers...

Good questions raised, but I do think that more reading of Wright would show that he does uphold a monergistic view of conversion and of the completion of salvation ("And those thus called, to return to Philippians 11.6, can be sure that the one who began a good work in them will complete it at the day of Christ.") I wish I had my Ephesians commentary here, but I left it at school. In any case, Wright does not attempt to smooth over Ephesians 1 by implying that election is based on foreknowledge of later chosen faith. Later, in Ephesians 2, he affirms that faith is a gift of God, not produced by the sinner. Unfortunately, I'm not able to present enough evidence here (especially without direct quotes) to convince you that Wright has a Calvinistic leaning in this regard, but I do believe it's there. Read the whole article and maybe even more of his work to see; this small excerpt, as you have capably pointed out, is not long enough to prove anything, particularly out of context. I'm also not implying that a broadly Calvinistic alignment in regards to conversion would excuse him of other errors.

However, Wright does think he is a "good Calvinist" (see the first article Joseph posted)--I think he's wrong about that, but there are some strains of Calvinism in his thought.

I have seen no evidence that Wright is actually an Arminian, and insofar as he claims to be a Calvinist, I do think that it is somewhat unfair for you to presume him Arminian until he is proven Calvinist, particularly if you are inclined to negate seemingly Calvinistic statements that he makes. I agree that none of this proves that he is Reformed, but seen within the context of his claim to be in the Calvinistic tradition, it squares pretty well. Whatever Wright's errors may be, affirmation of free will over against the Calvinistic model does not seem to be one of them. I would suggest that a better label for Wright than "Arminian" would be "bad Calvinist."

[Edited on 12-27-2005 by Ex Nihilo]

 

[DTK]

Originally posted by puritancovenanter

Originally posted by puritancovenanter
Precisely Evie.

I would like to read someones critique of this paper. It uses language or what appears to be exegesis of the Greek. I don't know how to respond to it because I can't argue against what he says concerning the Greek. I don't buy what he says but I would like to know if its discussion concerning the Greek is credible. I have heard others discuss this passage but not refute his understanding of the Greek text.

Anyone know where I can find a critique of this paper?

*BUMP* again Pastor King, Can you help me with this?

I don't know what "Bump" is suppose to mean or imply, but "Again?" Well, I missed the place where you first asked me personally for my help with this. In the first article, Wright begins with the following complaint...

There are several different agendas coming together at this point. The issue is sometimes treated as a variation on old modernist controversies, at other times as a clash between a Christian absolutism and a religious relativism, and at other times as a variation on a perceived protestant/catholic divide (or even a high-church/low-church divide), with the so-called new perspective focussing on ecclesiology rather than soteriology and being condemned for so doing. And that´s just the beginning. From time to time correspondents draw my attention to various websites on which you can find scathing denunciations of me for abandoning traditional protestant orthodoxy and puzzled rejoinders from people who have studied my work and know that I´m not saying what many of my critics say I´m saying. Go to amazon.com and look at the comments which anonymous correspondents have appended to some of my books.
Faced with that kind of problem, it would take a whole book to unpick the strands, to disentangle them from other issues, to explain what the so-called New Perspective is and isn´t, and to argue exegetically step by step for a particular reading of Paul. Clearly I can´t do that here. What I shall do instead is to make two opening remarks about my aim and method on the one hand and the problem of the New Perspective on the other, and then to attempt once more to say briefly what I think needs to be said about Paul and justification, sharpening up the issues here and there.

If anything, he begins the first article to which we are referenced by stating upfront that due to what he perceives as a problem on the part of the way others have critiqued him, that "to argue exegetically step by step for a particular reading of Paul" is something he "can´t do" in the very article to which we are directed. That seems somewhat strange to me if not to you. How can one reply to his exegetical step by step for a particular reading of Paul when he begins his article, as such, with this disclaimer? When people begin something this way, the very moment one begins to interact with what one perceives to be an exegetical case presented, then all one has to do is point you back to this initial disclaimer. He then states...

If I read Paul in the Reformed way of which, for me, Charles Cranfield remains the supreme exegetical exemplar, Romans made a lot of sense, but I had to fudge (as I could see Cranfield fudging) the negative statements about the Law in Galatians. For me then and now, if I had to choose between Luther and Calvin I would always take Calvin, whether on the Law or (for that matter) the Eucharist. But as I struggled this way and that with the Greek text of Romans and Galatians, it dawned on me, I think in 1976, that a different solution was possible.

I don't know about you, but here he's telling us that he's found a different solution to understanding the Greek text of Romans and Galatians than that of Luther and Calvin. How difficult can this be?
He continues...

In Romans 10.3 Paul, writing about his fellow Jews, declares that they are ignorant of the righteousness of God, and are seeking to establish "˜their own righteousness´. The wider context, not least 9.30"“33, deals with the respective positions of Jews and Gentiles within God´s purposes "“ and with a lot more besides, of course, but not least that. Supposing, I thought, Paul meant "˜seeking to establish their own righteousness´, not in the sense of a moral status based on the performance of Torah and the consequent accumulation of a treasury of merit, but an ethnic status based on the possession of Torah as the sign of automatic covenant membership? I saw at once that this would make excellent sense of Romans 9 and 10, and would enable the positive statements about the Law throughout Romans to be given full weight while making it clear that this kind of use of Torah, as an ethnic talisman, was an abuse. I sat up in bed that night reading through Galatians and saw that at point after point this way of looking at Paul would make much better sense of Galatians, too, than either the standard post-Luther readings or the attempted Reformed ones.

Here, Wright states very clearly that his reading of Romans 10:3 in the "wider" context, particularly 9.30"“33, leads him away from "the standard post-Luther readings or the attempted Reformed ones." Shall we call this an exegetical point or a contextual one, or some combination of both, based on his perception? How does one begin to treat it exegetically in the light of his own initial disclaimer? He is rather, candid, is he not, about departing from "the standard post-Luther readings or the attempted Reformed ones?" He then represents his position as exegetically based ere he even presents his exegetical arguments, for which, to be sure, he has already offered a disclaimer at the very beginning...

The reason I´m telling you this is to show that I came to the position I still hold (having found it over the years to be deeply rewarding exegetically right across Paul; I regard as absolutely basic the need to understand Paul in a way which does justice to all the letters, as well as to the key passages in individual ones) "“ that I came to this position, not because I learned it from Sanders or Dunn, but because of the struggle to think Paul´s thoughts after him as a matter of obedience to scripture. This brings me to the complexity of the so-called New Perspective and of my relationship to it.

One thing he does tell us is that he still holds (at this point) the new position to which he has arrived. He further states...

I say all this to make it clear that there are probably almost as many "˜New Perspective´ positions as there are writers espousing it "“ and that I disagree with most of them. Where I agree is as follows. It is blindingly obvious when you read Romans and Galatians "“ though you would never have known this from any of the theologians we discussed yesterday "“ that virtually whenever Paul talks about justification he does so in the context of a critique of Judaism and of the coming together of Jew and Gentile in Christ. As an exegete determined to listen to scripture rather than abstract my favourite bits from it I cannot ignore this. The only notice that most mainstream theology has taken of this context is to assume that the Jews were guilty of the kind of works-righteousness of which theologians from Augustine to Calvin and beyond have criticised their opponents; and, though Sanders´s account of Judaism needs a lot more nuancing, I regard the New Perspective´s challenge to this point as more or less established. What I miss entirely in the Old Perspective, but find so powerfully in some modern Pauline scholarship, is Paul´s sense of an underlying narrative, the story of God and Israel, God and Abraham, God and the covenant people, and the way in Rutherford House which that story came to its climax, as he says, "˜when the time had fully come´ with the coming of Jesus the Messiah. How all this works out is still very controversial within the New Perspective. But at these points, for good exegetical and historical reasons, I find myself saying Here I Stand.

Where has the man yet to make a specific exegetical point rather than assuming it from his own contextual reading of Paul in these passages? All he´s told us is what is "œblindingly obvious" to himself. He claims that the common understanding that "œthe Jews were guilty of the kind of works-righteousness of which theologians from Augustine to Calvin and beyond have criticised their opponents; and, though Sanders´s account of Judaism needs a lot more nuancing, I regard the New Perspective´s challenge to this point as more or less established." Now, indeed, he has assumed a certain exegesis, but he has yet to make any specific exegetical case in pronouncing the New Perspective´s challenge as established. This seems rather odd to me. I perceive more theologizing going on, thus far, than any exegetical argumentation with which to interact.

He then seems to indicate he´s going to engage the text of Paul exegetically...

I begin where Romans begins "“ with the gospel. My proposal is this. When Paul refers to "˜the gospel´, he is not referring to a system of salvation, though of course the gospel implies and contains this, nor even to the good news that there now is a way of salvation open to all, but rather to the proclamation that the crucified Jesus of Nazareth has been raised from the dead and thereby demonstrated to be both Israel´s Messiah and the world´s true Lord. "˜The gospel´ is not "˜you can be saved, and here´s how´; the gospel, for Paul, is "˜Jesus Christ is Lord´.

I don´t know how his last sentence here could be set in any clearer contrast to the words of Paul in 1 Corinthians 15:1-2, 1 Moreover, brethren, I declare to you the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received and in which you stand, 2 by which also you are saved, if you hold fast that word which I preached to you -- unless you believed in vain.. Paul tells us quite clearly that the gospel proclaimed by him is the one by which the Corinthians "œare saved." Yet Wright tells us that, in his reading of Paul, the gospel is distinguished from "œhow" we "œcan be saved." Now, maybe it´s just me and a whole host of others who have missed what Wright sees so clearly. In 1 Cor 15:1-4, the Pauline emphasis on the Lordship of Christ is not so much explicitly stated by Paul as it is assumed when he articulates for us the Gospel which he received and in which they (the Corinthians) stand. Paul´s emphasis there in 1 Cor 15:1-4, when he explicitly articulates the Gospel, shows an emphasis on both the substitutionary death of Christ and his resurrection from the dead, not on some reduced declaration that Christ is Lord. Of course, Christ is Lord! But is that the emphasis and/or focus of Paul in his articulation of the Gospel message? I answer no. But Wright wants to cast Paul´s words in Romans 1:ff against the background of Isaiah 40 and 52, and then informs us that his position on "œthe righteousness of God" ( I suppose he´s referring to Rom 1:17) is to be understood as "œGod´s covenant faithfulness." Now, this point has not been established exegetically from the text, so what exegesis is there at this point to be engaged? The man is simply theologizing the passages rather than engaging them exegetically. But again, we have his disclaimer upfront, don´t we?
When we get to page 6, we are greeted with what appears to be an attempt at exegesis..

The second point concerns the phrase "˜the righteousness of God´, dikaiosune theou. I became convinced many years ago, and time and exegesis have confirmed this again and again, that Paul always uses this phrase to denote, not the status which God´s people have from him or in his presence, but the righteousness of God himself. This is not to say that there is no such thing as a righteous status held by believers. There is. It is to deny that this is the referent of Paul´s phrase dikaiosune theou. Here a Pauline exegesis rooted in Paul´s own understanding of Jewish scripture and tradition must challenge the fuzzy thinking that, listening to yesterday´s papers, I discover characterised most of the great, but basically Latin-speaking, theologians.
The main argument for taking dikaiosune theou to denote an aspect of the character
of God himself is the way in which Paul is summoning up a massive biblical and intertestamental theme, found not least in Isaiah 40"”55 which I have argued elsewhere is vital for him. God´s dikaiosune, his tsedaqah, is that aspect of his character because of which, despite Israel´s infidelity and consequent banishment, God will remain true to the covenant with Abraham and rescue her none the less. This "˜righteousness´ is of course a form of justice; God has bound himself to the covenant, or perhaps we should say God´s covenant is binding upon him, and through this covenant he has promised not only to save Israel but also, thereby, to renew creation itself. The final flourish of Isaiah 55 is not to be forgotten, especially when we come to Romans 8. Righteousness, please note, is not the same thing as salvation; God´s righteousness is the reason why he saves Israel. But this covenant-fidelity, this covenant-justice, is not purely a matter of salvific activity. As Daniel 9 makes clear, it is a matter of God´s severe justice upon covenantbreaking Israel, and only then a matter of God´s merciful rescue of penitent Israel.
This is why the gospel "“ the announcement that Jesus Christ is Lord "“ contains within itself, as Paul insists in Romans 2.16, the message of future judgment as well as the news of salvation. What God´s righteousness never becomes, in the Jewish background which Paul is so richly summing up, is an attribute which is passed on to, reckoned to, or imputed to, his people. Nor does Paul treat it in this way. What we find, rather, is that Paul is constantly (especially in Romans, where all but one of the occurrences of the phrase are found) dealing with the themes which from Isaiah to 4 Ezra cluster together with the question of God´s righteousness: how is God to be faithful to Israel, to Abraham, to the world? How will the covenant be fulfilled, and who will be discovered to be God´s covenant people when this happens?
This is precisely what Romans 9"“11 is about, not as an appendix to the letter but as its proper climax. And this is anticipated in several earlier parts of the letter conveniently screened out by the great tradition in its quest for a non-Jewish soteriology, not least the second half of Romans 2, the first nine verses of Romans 3, and the fact that in Romans 4 Paul is demonstrably arguing about God´s faithfulness to the Abrahamic covenant, not simply using Abraham as an example of someone justified by faith.

Wright tells us here that his understanding of the Greek word God´s dikaiosune theou is something for which he has argued elsewhere. Again, he has yet to present his own case for his understanding of this term from an exegetical perspective. He´s assumed it rather than offering something in this paper with which to argue exegetically. At this point, he´s simply arguing for his own "œcontextual" understanding of Paul.
He then proceeds to tell us that his understanding of Paul, viz., that "œhe´s arguing about God´s faithfulness to the Abrahamic covenant" is to be set in contrast to "œthe tragedy of reformation exegesis."

Part of the tragedy of reformation exegesis, not least Lutheran exegesis, is that this entire line of thought [i.e., that Paul is arguing about God´s faithfulness to the Abrahamic covenant] was screened out. Thus even Käsemann, who sees clearly that
dikaiosune theou must refer to God´s own righteousness, cannot allow that it has anything to do with the covenant, but insists, against the evidence, that it has become a technical term denoting "˜God´s salvation-creating power´, with a cosmic reach. He fails to notice a point I have come to regard as central and crucial: that the covenant with Israel was always designed to be God´s means of saving and blessing the entire cosmos. You get the cosmic reach, as in Genesis 12, as in Isaiah 40"”55, as in the Psalms, as in Romans 8, as in 1 Corinthians 15, not by bypassing the covenant but by fulfilling it.

I see a great deal of theologizing here, but no explicit exegesis with which to interact. He´s assuming exegetical points rather than establishing them, and we´re at the beginning of page 7 of a 17 page article. He then proceeds to appeal to an even broader contextual reading of Paul...

What then can we say about the status of "˜righteous´ which, in many Pauline passages, is enjoyed by the people of God in Christ? For Paul, there is a clear distinction. God´s own righteousness is dikaiosune theou. The status of "˜righteous´ which people enjoy as a result of God´s action in Christ and by the Spirit is, in Philippians 3.9, he ek theou dikaiosune, the righteous status which is "˜from God´. Ignoring this distinction, and translating dikaiosune theou as "˜a righteousness from God´ or something like that, makes nonsense of several passages, most noticeably Romans 3.21"“26 (as, for instance, in the appalling and self-contradictory NIV!), where the great theme is the way in which God has been faithful to the covenant, the astonishing way whereby all alike, Jewish sinners and Gentile sinners, are welcomed, redeemed, justified.

Here, once again, Wright is appealing to a wider contextual understanding of Paul elsewhere, declaring it to be a clear distinction. A mere reference to the Greek text at this point, he ek theou dikaiosune as found in Philip 3:9 doesn´t make any exegetical point, for he once again assumes his own contextual reading of Paul. The Reformers translated he ek theou dikaiosune as "œthe righteousness which is from God." But lo and behold, Wright here assumes this status to mean that of covenant faithfulness rather than God´s declaration of the justified sinner to be righteous. Do we grant that we see here exegesis or eisegesis? He then appeals not to a specific Pauline text, but to a "œcontext of the Jewish lawcourt" which Wright claims "œforms the background for Paul´s forensic use of the dikaiosune theme." Moreover, he goes on to state...

What then about the "˜imputed righteousness´ about which we are to hear an entire paper this afternoon? This is fine as it stands; God does indeed "˜reckon righteousness´to those who believe. But this is not, for Paul, the righteousness either of God or ofChrist, except in a very specialised sense to which I shall return. There are only two passages which can be invoked in favour of the imputed righteousness being that of God or Christ. The first proves too much, and the second not enough.

In these two passages that he references, 1 Cor 1:30f and 2 Cor 5:21, all Wright offers us is his negative rejection of these passages for the doctrine of imputation. He tells us that these two passages are the only ones that can be "œinvoked in favour of the imputed righteousness being that of God or Christ" which, very clearly to me, virtually ignores the passage of Romans 4 where Paul actually employs the verb logi,zomai, to "œimpute or reckon." I´m rather shocked that such an acclaimed scholar has at this point simply passed over without reference to the explicit Pauline passage in Romans on the doctrine of imputation. But it is clear to me that Wright has already "œstacked the deck," so to speak, by ignoring this vital Pauline passage where the apostle explicitly employs the language of "œimputation." Can we grant this as a fair contextual reading of Paul, when the very passage where Paul does employ the language of imputation explicitly is ignored? Listen, it doesn´t require a scholar to identify this, for even a layman who is sufficiently familiar with the Pauline corpus can spot this without the aid of a trained exegete. No where in this paper does the man engage the Pauline language of logi,zomai in Romans 4!

At this point, I´m not going to employ any more of my time to interact further with this paper, because Wright himself fails to interact exegetically with the key Pauline passage on imputation in Romans 4. Yet he complains that the Reformers are guilty of having distorted what Paul was trying to say...

But Paul does not say that he sees us clothed with the earned merits of Christ. That would of course be the wrong meaning of "˜righteous´ or "˜righteousness´. He sees us within the vindication of Christ, that is, as having died with Christ and risen again with him. I suspect that it was the mediaeval over-concentration on righteousness, on iustitia, that caused the protestant reformers to push for imputed righteousness to do the job they rightly saw was needed. But in my view they have thereby distorted what Paul himself was saying.

The man never interacts exegetically with...

1) Romans 4:6, just as David also describes the blessedness of the man to whom God imputes righteousness apart from works:

2) Romans 4:11, And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had while still uncircumcised, that he might be the father of all those who believe, though they are uncircumcised, that righteousness might be imputed to them also,

or

3) Romans 4:23-24 Now it was not written for his sake alone that it was imputed to him, but also for us. It shall be imputed to us who believe in Him who raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead,

Since the man doesn´t even engage the explicit Pauline Passage on imputation in this paper, how in the world can one interact with his exegesis when his own exegesis ignores these verses? Now, you don't need me or any exegetical expert to point out to you that the man, in this first article, has ignored the primary Pauline passage on imputation. All you need is a familiar acquaintance with your own English Bible to detect that.

Cheers,
DTK

 

[C. Matthew McMahon]

Originally posted by Ex Nihilo

With all due respect, Dr. McMahon, if we are saved by belief in good theology beyond our belief that Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who was crucified and resurrected, is Lord, then I would have to fear for my own salvation.

If Wright is going to go to hell for what he believes when he affirms all of this, I wonder what exactly is necessary for salvation.

As far as I know, Christ told us that we are to believe the Gospel. And if we teach or preach any other Gospel than that which was delievered to the church, once for all, then we stand condemned.

Galatians 1:8-9 But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed. 9 As we have said before, so now I say again, if anyone preaches any other gospel to you than what you have received, let him be accursed.

It is always interesting to me that once things get down to the nitty gritty of actually "sticking" to the Gospel or not, people are very often apt to get very loose on thier theology because they do not want to stand on what the Scripture actually says.

NT Wright is teaching a false Gospel. The Scriptures are very clear about beleiving the Gospel, not an abberation of it, or a twisting of it, or a false misrepresentation of it. We have to believe 100% of the Gospel to be saved. If we are regenerated, we will. If anyone would like, they can go back and dig up the countless threads that talk about "What is the Gospel?" People believe in all types of "Jesus" and all kinds of "Gods". Only one gets them to heaven, and its not the one Wright is teaching.

 

[wsw201]

Evie,

Because a lot of things can get lost here in virtual reality, I would recommend you take your concerns about Wright and his various positions to your Elders there at Pineville. As I have said before, no one on this board is responsible for your soul. That responsibility belongs to the Elders of your church.

You are asking important questions and we can only do so much here on this message board. Obviously you are getting quite a variety of answers and opinions, with the majority being negative towards Wright's position. So it might help to talk to someone face to face. I believe Jack Sawyer is the pastor at Pineville? Talk to him or one of the RE's. They should be able to help.

 

[C. Matthew McMahon]

Originally posted by Saiph
Given the reasons you posted for this unscrupulous and insolent assertion it would follow that you also would condemn every theologian before Luther to the same retribution ? ? ?

Unscrupulous - having no moral integrity, not acting in strict regard for what is right and proper.

So you are saying I have n o moral integrity for what is right and proper? The Scriptures do not bring judgment on false teachers? Jesus was not concerned with such? I beg to differ.

Insolent - overbearing, to bring down by superior weight or force marked by contemptuous or cocky boldness or disregard of others.

I don't think careful quoting of NT Wright was contemptuous, nor cocky. It simply pulls him out of the darkness of the closet and into the light - exposed for what he is.

Neither of these words apply to the post I posted. The Scriptures hold the highest moral integrity, and were written so that people would know the truth, not "personal versions" or "aberrations" of it. Wright is taking the Word of God and distorting it, and teaching false doctrine as a false teacher. This is neither overbearing, or unscrupulous. The Scriptures condemn him if he continues on this course. If that is too much for you, then talk to God about it. He is the one that inspired the Scriptures and had them written in the way we have them today. Wright, simply, doesn't understand them.

Its always interesting to me to see people get upset when righteous lines are drawn theologically and doctrinally in the sand. If you recall, Jesus did the same. He placed much weight upon the truth of that which is to be believed for salvation.

John 1:7 This man came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all through him might [b:cb928aad67]believe. [/b:cb928aad67]

John 1:50 Jesus answered and said to him, "Because I said to you, 'I saw you under the fig tree,' do you [b:cb928aad67]believe? [/b:cb928aad67]

John 3:12 "If I have told you earthly things and you do not [b:cb928aad67]believe[/b:cb928aad67], how will you believe if I tell you heavenly things?

John 3:18 He who [b:cb928aad67]believes[/b:cb928aad67] in Him is not condemned; but he who does not [b:cb928aad67]believe[/b:cb928aad67] is condemned already, because he has not [b:cb928aad67]believed[/b:cb928aad67] in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

John 3:36 He who believes in the Son has everlasting life; and he who does not [b:cb928aad67]believe[/b:cb928aad67] the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him."

John 4:21 Jesus said to her, "Woman, [b:cb928aad67]believe[/b:cb928aad67] Me, the hour is coming when you will neither on this mountain, nor in Jerusalem, worship the Father.

John 5:38 But you do not have His word abiding in you, because whom He sent, Him you do not [b:cb928aad67]believe[/b:cb928aad67].

John 5:46-47 "For if you [b:cb928aad67]believed[/b:cb928aad67] Moses, you would [b:cb928aad67]believe[/b:cb928aad67] Me; for he wrote about Me. 47 "But if you do not [b:cb928aad67]believe[/b:cb928aad67] his writings, how will you [b:cb928aad67]believe[/b:cb928aad67] My words?"

John 6:29 Jesus answered and said to them, [b:cb928aad67]"This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He sent."[/b:cb928aad67]

John 6:36 "But I said to you that you have seen Me and yet do not [b:cb928aad67]believe[/b:cb928aad67].

John 6:64 But there are some of you who do not [b:cb928aad67]believe[/b:cb928aad67]." For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were who did not [b:cb928aad67]believe[/b:cb928aad67], and who would betray Him.

John 6:69 Also we have come to [b:cb928aad67]believe[/b:cb928aad67] and know that You are the Christ, the Son of the living God."

John 7:5 For even His brothers did not [b:cb928aad67]believe[/b:cb928aad67] in Him.

John 8:24 Therefore I said to you that you will die in your sins; for if you do not [b:cb928aad67]believe[/b:cb928aad67] that I am He, you will die in your sins."

John 8:45 "But because I tell the truth, you do not [b:cb928aad67]believe[/b:cb928aad67] Me.

John 8:46 Which of you convicts Me of sin? And if I tell the truth, why do you not [b:cb928aad67]believe[/b:cb928aad67] Me?

John 9:35 "Do you [b:cb928aad67]believe[/b:cb928aad67] in the Son of God?"

John 9:36 He answered and said, "Who is He, Lord, that I may [b:cb928aad67]believe[/b:cb928aad67] in Him?"

John 9:38 Then he said, "Lord, I [b:cb928aad67]believe!"[/b:cb928aad67] And he worshiped Him.

John 10:25-26 Jesus answered them, "I told you, and you do not [b:cb928aad67]believe[/b:cb928aad67]. The works that I do in My Father's name, they bear witness of Me. 26 "But you do not [b:cb928aad67]believe[/b:cb928aad67], because you are not of My sheep, as I said to you.

John 10:37-38 "If I do not do the works of My Father, do not [b:cb928aad67]believe[/b:cb928aad67] Me; 38 "but if I do, though you do not [b:cb928aad67]believe[/b:cb928aad67] Me, [b:cb928aad67]believe[/b:cb928aad67] the works, that you may know and [b:cb928aad67]believe[/b:cb928aad67] that the Father is in Me, and I in Him."

John 11:26-27 "And whoever lives and [b:cb928aad67]believes[/b:cb928aad67] in Me shall never die. Do you [b:cb928aad67]believe[/b:cb928aad67] this?" 27 She said to Him, "Yes, Lord, I believe that You are the Christ, the Son of God, who is to come into the world."

John 11:42 And I know that You always hear Me, but because of the people who are standing by I said this, that they may [b:cb928aad67]believe[/b:cb928aad67] that You sent Me."

John 12:36 "While you have the light, [b:cb928aad67]believe[/b:cb928aad67] in the light, that you may become sons of light."

John 13:19 "Now I tell you before it comes, that when it does come to pass, you may [b:cb928aad67]believe[/b:cb928aad67] that I am He.

John 14:1 "Let not your heart be troubled; you [b:cb928aad67]believe[/b:cb928aad67] in God, [b:cb928aad67]believe[/b:cb928aad67] also in Me.

John 14:10-11 Do you not [b:cb928aad67]believe[/b:cb928aad67] that I am in the Father, and the Father in Me? The words that I speak to you I do not speak on My own authority; but the Father who dwells in Me does the works. 11 "[b:cb928aad67]Believe[/b:cb928aad67] Me that I am in the Father and the Father in Me, or else [b:cb928aad67]believe[/b:cb928aad67] Me for the sake of the works themselves.

John 14:29 And now I have told you before it comes, that when it does come to pass, you may [b:cb928aad67]believe[/b:cb928aad67].

OK, I'll stop there. There are tons more. Do you think beleiving is important to salvation? Is it importnat to believe something specific? or does it not matter?

[Edited on 12-27-2005 by C. Matthew McMahon]

 

[Ex Nihilo]

Originally posted by wsw201
Evie,

Because a lot of things can get lost here in virtual reality, I would recommend you take your concerns about Wright and his various positions to your Elders there at Pineville. As I have said before, no one on this board is responsible for your soul. That responsibility belongs to the Elders of your church.

You are asking important questions and we can only do so much here on this message board. Obviously you are getting quite a variety of answers and opinions, with the majority being negative towards Wright's position. So it might help to talk to someone face to face. I believe Jack Sawyer is the pastor at Pineville? Talk to him or one of the RE's. They should be able to help.

I think this is excellent advice...

 

[Saiph]

Belief entails more than the rigid doctrine of sola fide. How God justifies us is more mysterious than just alien forensic righteousness placed upon us. I find the reformed idea to be an oversimplification.

Hebrews 11:6
And without faith it is impossible to please him, for whoever would draw near to God must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who seek him.

Jude 1:5
Now I want to remind you, although you once fully knew it, that Jesus, who saved a people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed those who did not believe.

Faith is existential throughout the Gospels and new testament record. It is lived out in spite of understanding, and seems to involve more of the human will than many reformed people I speak with will admit.

How does Wright's idea of righteousness actually contradict reformed theology ? I think it augments it.

Rom 3:20 For by works of the law no human being will be justified in his sight, since through the law comes knowledge of sin.

Are we justified by Christ's works of the law ? Or was Christ justified before God because He perfectly obeyed them ? Is it the actual righteousness of Christ imputed to us and infused in us by the power of the Holy Spirit ? Note the following verse:

Rom 3:21 But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it--

Rom 3:22 the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction:
Rom 3:23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,
Rom 3:24 and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus,
Rom 3:25 whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God's righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins.
Rom 3:26 It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.
Rom 3:27 Then what becomes of our boasting? It is excluded. By what kind of law? By a law of works? No, but by the law of faith.
Rom 3:28 For we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law.

Christ's work is applied for us first, and granted to us through the baptism of the Spirit.


Rom 16:25 Now to him who is able to strengthen you according to my gospel and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery that was kept secret for long ages
Rom 16:26 but has now been disclosed and through the prophetic writings has been made known to all nations, according to the command of the eternal God, to bring about the obedience of faith--
Rom 16:27 to the only wise God be glory forevermore through Jesus Christ! Amen.

The righteousness of God is simply "the obedience of faith".

 

[Saiph]

By 'the gospel' Paul does not mean 'justification by faith' itself. He means the announcement that the crucified and risen Jesus is Lord. To believe this message, to give believing allegiance to Jesus as Messiah and Lord, is to be justified in the present by faith (whether or not one has even heard of justification by faith). Justification by faith itself is a second-order doctrine: to believe it is both to have assurance (believing that one will be vindicated on the last day [Rom. 5.1-5]) and to know that one belongs in the single family of God, called to share table-fellowship without distinction with all other believers (Gal. 2.11-21). But one is not justified by faith by believing in justification by faith (this, I think, is what Newman thought Protestants believed), but by believing in Jesus.

'Justification' is thus the declaration of God, the just judge, that someone is (a) in the right, that their sins are forgiven, and (b) a true member of the covenant family, the people belonging to Abraham. That is how the word works in Paul's writings. It doesn't describe how people get in to God's forgiven family; it declares that they are in.

N.T. Wright

I Peter 1:17-21
And if you call on him as Father who judges impartially according to each one's deeds, conduct yourselves with fear throughout the time of your exile, knowing that you were ransomed from the futile ways inherited from your forefathers, not with perishable things such as silver or gold, but with the precious blood of Christ, like that of a lamb without blemish or spot. He was foreknown before the foundation of the world but was made manifest in the last times for your sake, who through him are believers in God, who raised him from the dead and gave him glory, so that your faith and hope are in God.

Hebrews 6:1,2
Therefore let us leave the elementary doctrine of Christ and go on to maturity, not laying again a foundation of repentance from dead works and of faith toward God, and of instruction about washings, the laying on of hands, the resurrection of the dead, and eternal judgment.

Philippians 1:6
And I am sure of this, that he who began a good work in you will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ.