N.T. Wright responds to John Piper

Status
Not open for further replies.
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.

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

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?).
 
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."

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.

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

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-----

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

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?).

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.
 
:luther: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.

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"? :cheers:

bryan
tampa, fl
.
.
.
.
 
(Rom 10:1) Brethren, my heart's desire and prayer to God for Israel is, that they might be saved.

(Rom 10:2) For I bear them record that they have a zeal of God, but not according to knowledge.

(Rom 10:3) For they being ignorant of God's righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God.

(Rom 10:4) For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth.

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'.
 
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!).

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.
 
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.
 
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?

… ‘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.

‘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

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
 
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.
 
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.
 
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?

… ‘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.

‘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

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.
 
Wright and Canon

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.

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.
 
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 worshipping? 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.
 
Last edited:
Sad thing is, I'm probably gonna just have to buy it now. :book2:

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. :)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top