# NT Wright on Paul



## openairboy (Jul 21, 2005)

Paul in Different Perspective by NT Wright

A couple quotable quotes:

" I am the author of the longest ever exposition and defence, certainly in modern times, of the view that Jesus himself made Isaiah 53, the greatest atonement-chapter in the Old Testament, *the clearest statement of penal substitution in the whole of the Bible*, central to his own self-understanding and vocation, and I have spelled out the meaning of that, in the sustained climax of my second longest book, in great detail. I have done my NT scholarship in a world where battle-lines were drawn up very clearly on this topic: those who want to avoid penal substitution at all costs have done their best to argue that Jesus did not refer to Isaiah 53, and I have refuted that attempt at great length and, I trust, with proper weight. *What is more, I have expounded the truth of Jesus´ death "˜in our place´ from the very first sermon I preached*, in Passiontide 1972, _when I spoke to a small congregation on the faith of the dying brigand who turned to Jesus on the cross and saw him as the innocent one dying the death of the guilty_. I have several volumes of sermons in print, and in many of them you will find sermons on the cross expounding this view of the atonement. If you look at my biblical commentaries, whether scholarly or popular, you will find the same thing. It is therefore bizarre to be told, in a recent book criticizing me on this and on several other counts, that my statements remain "˜vague´, just because I do not subscribe to a particular Reformed way of talking about imputed righteousness, about which we shall have more to say later, and just because I, like Paul himself in many passages, highlight the Christus Victor theme rather than penal substitution, even though when you ask how the powers of evil were defeated Paul´s answer is of course that God condemned them. Again, I invoke the Tyndale principle: I am determined to read exactly what is there in scripture, not to miss a thing on the one hand but not to insert things either into texts which do not state them."

"But, equally, the covenant plan of God has what may loosely be called a "˜participationist´ aspect, and this, too, is part of the glorification of God, as I have already shown from Romans 15. Abraham´s true family, the single "˜seed´ which God promised him, is summed up in the Messiah, *whose role precisely as Messiah is not least to draw together the identity of the whole of God´s people so that what is true of him is true of them and vice versa*. _Here we arrive at one of the great truths of the gospel_, which is that the accomplishment of Jesus Christ is reckoned to all those who are "˜in him´. This is the truth which has been expressed within the Reformed tradition in terms of "˜imputed righteousness´, often stated in terms of Jesus Christ having fulfilled the moral law and thus having accumulated a "˜righteous´ status which can be shared with all his people. As with some other theological problems, I regard this as saying a substantially right thing in a substantially wrong way, and the trouble when you do that is that things on both sides of the equation, and the passages which are invoked to support them, become distorted."


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jul 22, 2005)

> Here we arrive at one of the great truths of the gospel, which is that the accomplishment of Jesus Christ is reckoned to all those who are "˜in him´. This is the truth which has been expressed within the Reformed tradition in terms of "˜imputed righteousness´, often stated in terms of Jesus Christ having fulfilled the moral law and thus having accumulated a "˜righteous´ status which can be shared with all his people.








> As with some other theological problems, I regard this as saying a substantially right thing in a substantially wrong way, and the trouble when you do that is that things on both sides of the equation, and the passages which are invoked to support them, become distorted."



So is he saying he believes the Reformed view but doesn't like how it is being said? 

Is he saying the above view is good but it is being said incorrectly. He sounds confused?


----------



## openairboy (Jul 22, 2005)

> _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> So is he saying he believes the Reformed view but doesn't like how it is being said?
> 
> Is he saying the above view is good but it is being said incorrectly. He sounds confused?



Yes, that is more or less what he is saying. I don't believe he is confused. It's not that confusing that he believes in the "imputation" of Christ's righteousness, but he doesn't believe 'justification' or certain traditional proof-texts are the right language or texts to use.

Think of it along the lines of a preterist saying, "Mt. 24 applies to the first century." To the Dispensational this is madness and "confusing". How can he believe such heretical notions that Jesus' 'second coming' was in the first century. "No. No, I believe in Jesus' 'second coming'," replies the preterist. "No you don't!" barks the Dispensational. "Yes, I just don't believe some of the traditional texts are addressing that issue."

For the Dispensational this is confusing. In the mind of the preterist, however, it is quite clear.

openairboy


----------



## AdamM (Jul 22, 2005)

> Yes, that is more or less what he is saying. I don't believe he is confused. It's not that confusing that he believes in the "imputation" of Christ's righteousness, but he doesn't believe 'justification' or certain traditional proof-texts are the right language or texts to use.



Keith, have you found that Wright sufficiently proves his case regarding the Reformation tradition misinterpreting proof texts for imputation? It seems to me Wright simply asserts this point as fact and never bothers to seriously interact with Reformation thought on this key matter. For example, can you find where Wright engages Hodge's work on Romans and shows it lacking or missing the mark? I think befroe we give up the old perspective in favor of the new perspective, the burden ought to be on those advocating the new ideas to at least in a serious way show where the old was deficient.


----------



## openairboy (Jul 22, 2005)

> _Originally posted by AdamM_
> Keith, have you found that Wright sufficiently proves his case regarding the Reformation tradition misinterpreting proof texts for imputation? It seems to me Wright simply asserts this point as fact and never bothers to seriously interact with Reformation thought on this key matter. For example, can you find where Wright engages Hodge's work on Romans and shows it lacking or missing the mark? I think befroe we give up the old perspective in favor of the new perspective, the burden ought to be on those advocating the new ideas to at least in a serious way show where the old was deficient.



Hi Adam,

Well, if I answer "yes" to your first question I am suddenly in a bit of a pickle. I will say that I find him convincing at certain points and on certain texts, esp. 2 Co. 5:21. I especially like that he begins with "the righteousness of God" in the Old Testament and uses that as his groundwork for understanding in the New Testament. I agree with his "participationist" theme, broadly considered. 

I have not read it, but he does have a complete commentary on Romans. In other areas he has mentioned Cranfield quite a bit, so I'm sure he interacts with him, although probably not Hodge. The only stuff I have come across w/ him interacting w/ Luther is kind of in passing, namely "Luther is in this context, Paul is in this context". There are so many issues invovled that it isn't as simplistic as many make it.

I confess I may be missing something, but I don't see the two-perspectives in complete antithesis to one another. Wright explicitly says, "In Luther's context, that is an appropriate application of the Gospel. 'It', however, is not THE Gospel." Because he doesn't buy into first century Judaism being the legalistic venue, it really changes his understanding of many texts. That understanding, however, doesn't negate, as he explicitly states, the rejection of the "imputation" of Christ's righteousness.

Personally, I think Wright has rounded and filled out my theology without having to jettison any of my basic Reformational beliefs, although their nuancing and articulation may be different.

openairboy

[Edited on 7-22-2005 by openairboy]


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jul 22, 2005)

> _Originally posted by openairboy_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> ...



Keith,

I'm not so sure he is a Historically correct in his arguments like you make him sound. So the jews had a doctrine of grace. They still were rejecting the saviour believing they were okay. 

I haven't read his 2Corinthians 5 comments but it is about reconciliation with God. A man to God. This may be set in a setting were Paul is addressing a group but it is addressed to individuals. I am guessing you are reading it as justiification in NTW's body of Christ language or Union with Christ language as a body. I don't see that the text proves his point. 

Give this 3 part lecture that James White did a listen to. One of the guys I discipled fell for this stuff. I believe it is distraction and misrepresentation of Paul. There are also many other articles Jacob (draught horse) has referenced in another thread. I personally appreciate Ryken and Wilson on the the issues. You can also find a lot of these on the New Paul Page or over at monergism.org.

p.s. I like your illustration but I believe his conclusions are incorrect. That would make your illustration incorrect also.

Also he has had to redefine *'The Righteousness of God.*

[Edited on 7-22-2005 by puritancovenanter]


----------



## openairboy (Jul 23, 2005)

> _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> I'm not so sure he is a Historically correct in his arguments like you make him sound. So the jews had a doctrine of grace. They still were rejecting the saviour believing they were okay.



I'm not saying he is completely accurate at all points. I'm not convinced that first century Judaism was 15th century Catholicism, though. Was it in great error? Yes, to the point that Jesus identified them as children of the devil.



> I haven't read his 2Corinthians 5 comments but it is about reconciliation with God. A man to God. This may be set in a setting were Paul is addressing a group but it is addressed to individuals. I am guessing you are reading it as justiification in NTW's body of Christ language or Union with Christ language as a body. I don't see that the text proves his point.



Read Wright's "Becoming the Righteousness of God". You may not agree, but you will at least have an educated guess.



> Give this 3 part lecture that James White did a listen to. One of the guys I discipled fell for this stuff. I believe it is distraction and misrepresentation of Paul. There are also many other articles Jacob (draught horse) has referenced in another thread. I personally appreciate Ryken and Wilson on the the issues. You can also find a lot of these on the New Paul Page or over at monergism.org



I am by no means giving Wright a whole sale endorsement. And, when possible, I will stick w/ reading Wright rather than his critics, because many of them do not listen to him. I do, however, hope and pray that Wright's opponents quit misrepresenting him. He believes in the imputation of Christ's righteousness, he believes in the substitutionary death of Jesus Christ, and he holds to the deity of Christ. These are bogus charges and, now, for anyone having heard or read this lecture, they simply become lies to say he denies these things. Yes, he uses different language. Yes, I think he errs on some verses. No, he is not against us.



> p.s. I like your illustration







> but I believe his conclusions are incorrect. That would make your illustration incorrect also.







> Also he has had to redefine *'The Righteousness of God.*



Wright on Righteousness.

openairboy

[Edited on 7-23-2005 by openairboy]


----------



## RamistThomist (Jul 23, 2005)

Also,
Over against liberal theology that has downplayed (or denied) that Christ is the suffering servant in the Isiatic passages, Wright has argued over 200 pages in Victory of God that Christ was indeed the suffering servant, although he does so from a unique angle.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jul 24, 2005)

> It should therefore be no surprise that in his summing-up he should refer to himself as "œbecoming" the "œrighteousness," that is, the "œcovenant faithfulness," of God.



Your correct. I don't buy it. I had already understood this. That is why I said what I did. 

The righteousness of God 

The Righteousness of God Pt.2

The Righteousness of God pt.3


As usual something that is unorthodox has to come in under the guise of redefining truth so they can slip in their belief.

[Edited on 7-24-2005 by puritancovenanter]


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jul 24, 2005)

Here is a good article critiquing the critique of Luther.

A Man More Sinned Against Than Sinning?


----------



## Poimen (Jul 24, 2005)

> _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> 
> 
> > It should therefore be no surprise that in his summing-up he should refer to himself as "œbecoming" the "œrighteousness," that is, the "œcovenant faithfulness," of God.
> ...



I don't know if that last statement makes me want to laugh or cry. Not because I don't believe it but rather that it is simply true. 

I think this quote by Samuel Miller needs to be posted again (and it is relevant to the FV as well):

"œWhen heresy rises in an evangelical body, it is never frank and open. It always begins by skulking, and assuming a disguise. Its advocates, when together, boast of great improvements, and congratulate one another on having gone greatly beyond the "œold dead orthodoxy," and on having left behind many of its antiquated errors: but when taxed with deviations from the received faith, they complain of the unreasonableness of their accusers, as they "œdiffer from it only in words." This has been the standing course of errorists ever since the apostolic age. They are almost never honest and candid as a party, until they gain strength enough to be sure of some degree of popularity. Thus it was with Arius in the fourth century, with Pelagius in the fifth, with Arminius and his companions in the seventeenth, with Amyraut and his associates in France soon afterwards, and with the Unitarians in Massachusetts, toward the close of the eighteenth and the beginning of the nineteenth centuries. They denied their real tenets, evaded examination or inquiry, declaimed against their accusers as merciless bigots and heresy-hunters, and strove as long as they could to appear to agree with the most orthodox of their neighbours; until the time came when, partly from inability any longer to cover up their sentiments, and partly because they felt strong enough to come out, they at length avowed their real opinions."

- Introductory Essay by Samuel Miller, 1841. As found in Scott, Thomas. The Articles of the Synod of Dort. Harrisonburg, Virginia: Sprinkle Publications, 1993.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jul 24, 2005)

Thanks Daniel.... Have a good LORDS day. Preach it good.


----------



## Poimen (Jul 24, 2005)

> _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> Thanks Daniel.... Have a good LORDS day. Preach it good.



You're welcome. I trust that the Lord's word will be preached tomorrow.


----------



## openairboy (Jul 24, 2005)

puritancovenanter said:



> I haven't read his 2Corinthians 5 comments but it is about reconciliation with God. A man to God. This may be set in a setting were Paul is addressing a group but it is addressed to individuals. I am guessing you are reading it as justiification in NTW's body of Christ language or Union with Christ language as a body. I don't see that the text proves his point.



Wright said:



> It should therefore be no surprise that in his summing-up he should refer to himself as "œbecoming" the "œrighteousness," that is, the "œcovenant faithfulness," of God.



puritancovenanter said:



> Your correct. I don't buy it. I had already understood this. That is why I said what I did.




There is nothing in Wright's paper consistent w/ your previous comments about it being "body of Christ" language, so I don't see how your previous comments relate to 'already [understanding]' his position. If you read the whole paper again, assuming you didn't/don't just read it to disagree, the flow of the argument, esp. if you read 2 Co. 2-6:10, is quite convincing. This comment would be completely out of the blue if the typical "how an individual stands before God" reading is read into it.

I will try to get to your links later. I just don't think playing link tag will really get us anywhere. I still don't believe most of Wright's critics have listened to him.

openairboy


----------



## RamistThomist (Jul 24, 2005)

I am listening to the point/counterpoint between Wright and Gaffin at the moment. Wright says that "I am not throwing away what we gained in the Reformation, but there are other facets to Paul's theology." If I assume his point--and this is my main criticism at the moment--he needs to be more clear on just how the former victories are maintained.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jul 24, 2005)

I agree, I have a lot of info running in my mind about this stuff. When I am talking about it, I am also reviewing my past conversations. A guy I discipled, who Pastors now, has bought into NPP. I remember one part of the discussion being that Union with Christ body is essential. Justification had to do with being in the body of Christ. I also remembered that this idea of the righteousness of God being defined as faithfulness to his body. 

I am not a greek or Latin scholar but I am sure that righteousness means more than God being faithful in the text since it is about reconciliation. He became sin. We become his righteousness. Or at least Paul does. I am sure it is we though. Why this contrast? Because they are antithetical. I think Wright is incorrect because he is twisting this to say something about Paul becoming God's faithfulness by being an ambassador. That doesn't sound like Pauls language. 


[Edited on 7-25-2005 by puritancovenanter]


----------



## Poimen (Jul 24, 2005)

> _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> I am not a greek or Latin scholar but I am sure that righteousness means more than God being faithful in the text since it is about reconciliation. He became sin. We become his righteousness. Or at least Paul does. I am sure it is we though. Why this contrast? Because they are antithetical. I think Wright is incorrect because he is twisting this to say something about Paul becoming God's faithfulness by being an ambassador.
> 
> [Edited on 7-25-2005 by puritancovenanter]



Well here is your problem. You are not a scholar and until you submit to their assumptions about what Paul was addressing (of which you cannot know unless some expert tells you whom he was addressing and what they believed from 1st century documents), you will never know the truth!


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jul 24, 2005)

Yea, 
Your probably correct Dan. I guess my antithetical understanding is just bad interpretation. Sin/Righteousness. Bad/Good. Lost/Found.
I'm just stupid. I just think Wright has taken in to much of E.P.Sanders poison. Sanders has a low view of scripture and I understand Wright does also.

Does anyone remember what their view of Scripture is? I know my buddy lost his way concerning that because of Wrights influence.

[Edited on 7-25-2005 by puritancovenanter]


----------



## RamistThomist (Jul 24, 2005)

> _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> I agree, I have a lot of info running in my mind about this stuff. When I am talking about it, I am also reviewing my past conversations. A guy I discipled, who Pastors now, has bought into NPP. I remember one part of the discussion being that Union with Christ body is essential. Justification had to do with being in the body of Christ. I also remembered that this idea of the righteousness of God being defined as faithfulness to his body.
> 
> I am not a greek or Latin scholar but I am sure that righteousness means more than God being faithful in the text since it is about reconciliation. He became sin. We become his righteousness. Or at least Paul does. I am sure it is we though. Why this contrast? Because they are antithetical. I think Wright is incorrect because he is twisting this to say something about Paul becoming God's faithfulness by being an ambassador. That doesn't sound like Pauls language.
> ...



Ligon Duncan and Mark Dever quickly point out that it is better to speak of the New Perspective(s) on Paul. This might have relevance later. In other words, Dunn is different from Sanders and Wright from both. I just remembered that little tidbit.


----------



## RamistThomist (Jul 24, 2005)

> _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> Sanders has a low view of scripture and I understand Wright does also.
> 
> Does anyone remember what their view of Scripture is? I know my buddy lost his way concerning that because of Wrights influence.
> ...



That would be incorrect. Wright has a higher view of Scripture than Dunn/Sanders. Listening to the point/counterpoint between him and Gaffin one must out of professional courtesy grant him that. 

Sanders is heterodox, no doubt about it. Wright goes to great lengths in his works to critizie Sanders on many points.

Steve Wilkins--and this was publicized in the Monroe newspaper--opnely asked wright if he believed the Bible was infallible. Wright answered, "Yes."


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jul 24, 2005)

Report of the Special Committee to study the New Perspective of Paul.

Thanks Daniel....

Jacob,
I believe one can affirm infallibility and not believe in inerrancy/Verbal Plunary Inspiration.

Anyways here is the Reformed Church of the United States statement concerning Wrights righteouness belief.
This is only a portion of the report.

RCUS paper....

III. Critical Response
A. The meaning of "˜righteousness´
Wright´s whole project, at least as it relates to Paul´s doctrine of justification, rests on his redefinition of
"œrighteousness." We recall that Wright sees "œrighteousness" as referring to one´s relationship to the
covenant. Wright succinctly redefines "œrighteousness" as follows, "œIt"¦denotes not so much the abstract
idea of justice or virtue, as right standing and consequent behavior, within a community."82 The net effect
of everything that Wright has to say about "œrighteousness" is that the verdict of justification does not
reflect the moral behavior of the justified. It only reflects the decision of the court.
For Wright at least part of Paul´s meaning "œrighteousness" (and its cognates) is rooted in the OT
background (Rom. 3:10, 3:21). Thus the obvious way to interact with Wright´s redefinition is to test it
both against the OT usage and Paul´s. We find Wright´s definition and description of righteousness
language to be unscriptural at several points. First, Old Testament meaning "œrighteousness" is primarily
forensic and ethical rather than covenantal.83 Covenant does not comprise the primary meaning of
"˜righteousness language´. Second the law-court background is not as Wright depicts. In particular, the OT
law-court contained a punitive element, which invalidates Wright´s thesis that the background was civil.
Third, the forensic background clearly signifies that the status of righteousness necessarily has regard to
the righteous behavior as the basis for the justifying verdict.
1. The Hebrew word sedeq/sedeqah is the main word-group for righteousness language in the OT,
and is translated in the LXX with dik- word-group (dikaia, dikaiosune, dikaioo, respectively in English,
"œrighteous", "œrighteousness", and "œjustify"). It carries different but closely related meanings depending
upon the context. There appear to be some usages where (in reference to God) the meaning of
"˜faithfulness´ may obtain. For instance, in Psalm 31:1, David cries, "œIn You, O Lord, I put my trust; Let
me never be ashamed; Deliver me in Your righteousness." Here some scholars see David referring to
80 Guy Prentiss Waters, Justification and the New Perspective on Paul, (Phillisburg: P & R, 2004), 138-139. We are
aware that Wright never uses the word "œground", but rather "œbasis" when referring to justification. But we are not
convinced that there is a real difference. Either word has God looking to the believer´s faith (present justification) or
entire life (future justification) to base/ground his decision to justify.
81 Ibid., 468. On the fiducial element Wright says "œ[faith has] an actively trusting content (casting oneself on God´s
mercy)." But then he goes on to mention the when applied to Jesus the word means "œfaithfulness."
82 N. T. Wright, "œRighteousness," in New Dictionary of Theology, Eds. S. B. Ferguson and D. Wright (Leicester:
IVP, 1988), 591.
83 All references to "œcovenant" in our discussion of Wright´s view pertain to God´s covenant with Abraham. Thus
when we say that the meaning of "œrighteousness language" is not essentially covenantal, we have the "œAbrahamic
covenant" in view. In other words the meaning of "œrighteousness" as we find it in the OT obtained outside of God´s
covenant relationship with Abraham. Whether this could be said of the Adamic covenant is not something we
address here, nor is it our intent to sever the meaning of righteous from that original relationship or even to say that
"œrighteousness" not covenantal. As will be clear, our point is that "œrighteousness" cannot be reduced to the confines
of God´s covenant relationship with Abraham.
23
God´s commitment to fulfill his covenant promises. A clearer instance of dikaiosune meaning faithfulness
is in Exodus 15:13 where the LXX translates hesed, a word associated with God´s constant and faithful
love, with the "˜righteousness´. We would only note in passing that even if there is a group of passages
where the faithfulness to covenant meaning stands, this meaning is a minor note in OT usage.84
Indeed the primary meaning of righteousness (sedeq/ah) concerns "œconformity to a norm", as
opposed to status within or faithfulness to the covenant. A long standing debate exists in biblical
scholarship concerning the root sdq, whether its meaning is normative or relational. The former conveys
the sense of conformity to a norm or standard, the later, fidelity to a relationship. Due to its complexity
we will leave this debate aside,85 yet make a couple of observations about the relational meaning, which
under girds Wright´s covenant-reading. To say that righteousness reflects a primarily relational meaning,
and has in view fidelity to that relationship (fulfilling the obligations and promises of the relationship),
has the effect of internalizing "œrighteousness" to the relationship in view (and, apparently, of relativizing
righteousness to the relationship and to its norms). In addition, the relational meaning ends up being
normative. For example, applying this basic meaning to God´s righteousness would then refer it to his
fidelity to the covenant. But normitivity is still present, notes Mark Seifrid, who, responding to the view
that"”"œGod´s righteousness consists in his fidelity to his people in saving them""”says that this
"œformulation cannot escape the idea of a norm (in this instance, "œfidelity") which is to govern God´s
action."86 God´s faithfulness implies that God is complying with the demands and promises of the
covenant that he has established.
Wright tears the moral overtones from the righteousness and truncates its meaning to covenant.
However, the biblical concept of righteousness will not succumb to Wright restrictions. The primary
import of righteousness is conformity to a norm (God´s law) and the broader setting is not the Abrahamic
covenant but often creation. Indeed, the broader setting is theological (God´s righteousness and justice).
At first glance, Reformed readers might be uneasy with this observation due to the Reformed emphasis on
covenant theology. However, the observation does not contradict traditional covenant theology, for the
Reformed have never identified or reduced righteousness to the confines of the Abrahamic Covenant. But,
more importantly, the evidence for a broader setting and normative meaning for "˜righteousness language´
is clear enough. Abraham´s appeal to God´s righteousness/justice proves the point: "œFar be it from You to
do such a thing, to slay the righteous with the wicked, so that the righteous should be as the wicked. Far
be it from You! Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right(?)" (Gen. 18:25). This verse is telling. First
the setting is clearly non-covenantal. Sodom was not in covenant with God! Only Lot could be said to be
affiliated with the covenant. Further, God is said to be the judge of all the earth. His righteousness
functions here outside the realm of covenant. Abraham is not imposing a covenant category upon noncovenant
people either (as if he were saying "œif they reflected covenant behavior"), for strictly speaking,
if a citizen of Sodom were righteous, by definition he would be in the covenant. Abraham appeals to
God´s righteousness/justice (we grant that sedeq is not used here, but the note of righteousness/justice is
clear)87 as ruling out the option of bringing unjust judgment, i.e., condemning and punishing the
84 See Douglas Moo, The Epistle to the Romans, New International Commentary on the New Testament, (Grand
Rapid: Eerdmans, 1996), 82. Moo cites 15 passages where the meaning of dik-word group in the LXX "œprobably"
have this meaning. These are Exod. 15.13; Ps. 35.24; 36.6, 10; 71.2; 89.16; 103.17; 111.3; 119;40 143.1, 11; 145.7;
Isa. 38.19; 63.7.
85 Mark Seifrid, "œPaul´s Use of Righteousness Language Against Its Hellenistic Background," in Justificaton and
Variegated Nomism: Volume 2"”The Paradoxes of Paul, ed. D. A. Carson, Peter T. O´brien, & Mark A. Seifried,
(Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2004), 420. Seifrid Writes, "œA number of recent studies have concluded on the
basis of etymology and usage that the concept of a standard or norm is generally associated with the [sedeq] wordgroup"¦.
The root [sedeq] is associated with concepts of legitimacy and normativity throughout the entire Northwest
Semitic language group"¦." 420-421.
86 Ibid., 416.
87 Henri Blocher, "œJustification of the Ungodly (Solo Fide)," Justificaton and Variegated Nomism: Volume 2"”The
Paradoxes of Paul, ed. D. A. Carson, Peter T. O´brien, & Mark A. Seifried, (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2004),
24
righteous. For God to condemn the righteous with the wicked, Abraham saw as an unjust act, one that
God would never do. Abraham is not saying that it would be an "˜unfaithful´ act, one out of accord with a
promissory relationship such as a covenant. Second, that righteousness involves conformity to a norm is
seen in Abraham´s contrasting of the righteous against the wicked, a contrast between moral character and
behavior, rather than covenant status. The righteous would be those who were upright. Despite Wright´s
revisions, for Abraham it was at least theoretically possible for there to be righteous Gentiles.
Not only was it theoretically possible for there to be righteous Gentiles in Sodom, but in fact
many covenant outsiders are actually referred to as righteous.88 Abimelech, a pagan king, stays the wrath
of God by pleading his own blameless behavior relative to marital law: But Abimelech had not come near
her; and he said, "Lord, wilt thou slay a nation, even though blameless? (Gen. 20:4 NASB). Though
righteousness language is not used in this instance, the episode is clearly juridical, which is the natural
home of all righteousness language in the OT. Noah, a non-Israelite, is called a righteous man: "œThis is
the genealogy of Noah. Noah was a just [righteous] man, perfect [blameless] in his generations; Noah
walked with God" (Gen. 6:9; 7:1). And this assessment is prior to the establishment the so-called Noatic
covenant (Gen. 6:18). Job also is praised as an upright man: "˜There was a man in the land of Uz, whose
name was Job, and that man was blameless, upright, and one who feared God and shunned evil´ (Job 1:1).
On this basis Job would later seek to be "œjustified" before God: "See now, I have prepared my case; I
know that I shall be vindicated (etsedaq, verb form of sedeq).89 Yet he knows that ultimately his own
integrity will not justify him: "œBut how can a man be righteous before God?" (Job 9:2).90
Further, not only are covenant-outsiders labeled and described as righteous and seek justification,
but, conversely, being a covenant-insider did not constitute someone as righteous. To be sure, Israel is
called a "œholy nation"91 (Deut 7:6) but its status as covenant people and its reception of the promised-land
did not happen because they were "˜righteous´; "˜Therefore understand that the Lord Your God is not giving
you this good land to possess because of your righteousness, for you are a stiff-necked people" (Deut. 9:6,
notice that here the contrast is moral and behavioral, not covenantal). Even for the Israelite, to be
righteous, meant keeping the law of God. This is the clear meaning of Deut. 6:25 "˜And then it will be
righteousness (sedeqah) for us if we are careful to observe all theses commandments before the Lord our
God, as He commanded us.´ "œThe sinaitic covenant," says Westerholm, "œ may"¦be said to provide its
members with a framework with which righteousness is to be pursued, and where unambiguous guidance
is given on how to attain it. Still, not even Israelites within the covenant are righteous without doing
righteousness."92
In the OT the righteous are often contrasted with the wicked. This is not a contrast of covenant
status, that is, a contrast of Jews and gentiles. The focus of the contrast is on ethical behavior. The first
Psalm establishes the point. God is said to know the way of the righteous, but the way of the wicked will
perish (v.6). The way of the righteous man is described negatively as not walking in the counsel nor
standing in the path of sinners, nor sitting in the seat of scoffers! (v.1). Positively, the righteous man
delights in and meditates upon the law of God (v.2). Again the emphasis cannot be on covenant status
since the emphasis is clearly on whether one conforms to the law. Indeed, it is correct to assume that the
wicked in Psalm one may have included Israelites.
465-500. "œWho can miss a clear notion of justice in the key question of Abraham´s intercession, though no [sedeq]
word is used"¦.What would be unjust, a denial of the right, would be the indiscriminate slaying of the wicked and
righteous together," 475.
88 Much of the follow analysis is indebted to Stephen Westerholm, Perspective Old and New On Paul: The
"œLutheran" Paul and His Critics, (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004), 261-296.
89 Job 13:18 cf. 40:8
90 Leon Morris, The Apostolic Preaching of the Cross, 3rd ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1969) 261.
91 It might be well to point that the language of "œholiness" fits Wright´s understanding better than "œrighteousness."
God calls Israel a "œholy people" (Deut. 7:6). This is a reference their status as his covenant people, not their
character (righteousness) because it his eye they were still a "œstiff-necked" people (Deut 9.6).
92 Westerholm, Perspectives Old and New, 288.
25
Many covenant people are said to be the equivalent of unrighteous. The contrast of righteousness
in the Hebrew is rasha, usually translated wicked. It is often juxtaposed to "˜righteous´ as in Psalm 1:6
"œFor the Lord knows the way of the righteous, But the way of the ungodly will perish" or as in Proverbs
3:33, "œThe curse of the Lord is on the house of the wicked, But He blesses the habitation of the just
[righteous]."93 Jeremiah puzzles over the prevalence of wicked people in Israel. "œRighteous are You, O
Lord, when I would plead with You; Yet let me talk with You about Your judgments; Why does the way
of the wicked prosper? Why are those happy who deal so treacherously?" (Jer. 12:1). God will cut off
Israel, which included both righteous and wicked, and says to the land of Israel, "œThus says the Lord,
"Behold, I am against you; and I will draw My sword out of its sheath and cut off both the righteous and
the wicked from you" (Ezek. 21:3). The prophets were to warn the wicked in Israel, "When I say to the
wicked, 'You shall surely die'; and you give him no warning, nor speak to warn the wicked from his
wicked way, to save his life, that same wicked man shall die in his iniquity, but his blood I will require at
your hand (Ezek. 3:18). The evidence could easily be multiplied and argued from different angles. The
point is that these wicked Israelites, though they possess the covenant status, were not righteous.
Righteousness can only be reduced to a covenant meaning by ignoring and overturning an ocean of
evidence.
2. What about the forensic background of righteousness language? Wright speaks of
"˜righteousness´ as having a forensic background and by this he means that the covenant was understood
through the lens of the Hebrew law-court metaphor.94 In the Hebrew law-court, which was civil,
"˜righteous´ only referred to covenant status. It referred to one´s vindication, not acquittal before the court
and said nothing about one´s prior behavior. In Wright, this version of the Hebrew law-court becomes a
tool used to dislodge the moral import of "˜righteousness´ from the verdict of justification. No longer does
the verdict mean that one is "œrighteous" in sense of conforming to law so that accusations do not stick. No
longer do believers need a perfect righteousness in order to be justified.
We will detail a few points in response to Wright´s forensic meaning shortly. But most important
of all that could be said, and this cannot be emphasized enough: despite all that creativity and acumen that
Wright applies in describing and proving his case, despite the surface similarity his view of the law-court
may have with historic Protestantism and his distancing himself from the Roman Catholic process view of
justification, despite all his reference to sin having been objectively dealt with by Jesus´ death and
resurrection, one salient and stubborn reality refuses to bend to Wright´s arguments: God is perfectly
righteous, and because he is so righteous he requires man to be righteous, that is, to do the law (Gal 3:10;
5:3), otherwise man will not pass muster at the judgment (Rom. 2:13). Wright nowhere reckons with the
fundamental fact that God is a righteous God requiring perfect righteousness from men.
As with his definition of righteousness in terms of covenant, so Wright´s depiction of the Hebrew
law-court, however much it may reflect Paul´s contemporary Jewish setting, does not square with the OT.
And Paul writings show fundamental continuity with the OT. Wright asserts that the law-court was civil
and not criminal, that the verdict conveyed vindication, not acquittal. And the verdict was rendered to
either the defendant or the plaintiff. In response, it should be noted that Wright is correct up to a point in
saying that Hebrew law-court was civil. That is, as he rightly states, there was no state-sponsored
prosecutor, no equivalent of a district attorney. Two disputants took their case before a judge, who then
decided the issue. However, these facts do not mean that the law-court was not criminal! It is better to say
that the law-court was, by today´s procedures, civil in form, yet often criminal in function. The plaintiff in
Israel often brought accusations, which, if they proved true, resulted in a defendant´s condemnation, and
the punishment, which was then meted out by Israel. And if the plaintiff´s accusation was not proved,
then the defendant was acquitted of the charges.
93 See the series of contrasts throughout Proverbs 10.
94 To speak of the law-court background as a metaphor is patently unbiblical. The divine law-court is spoken of in
non-figurative terms in both Testaments. This hardly needs to be proved.
26
This reality of condemnation in the OT judicial background tells against Wright´s depiction of the
Hebrew law-court as well as his truncating of God´s righteousness to his covenant faithfulness. In both
Testaments there is clearly a phenomenon that can accurately be called God´s punitive or retributive
justice. Wright dismisses this as a "œLatin irrelevance".95 But retributive justice clearly is a part of God´s
righteousness as is seen in Jeremiah 51:56 "˜Because the plunderer comes against her, against Babylon,
And her mighty men are taken, everyone of their bows is broken; For the Lord is the God of recompense,
He will surely repay´. No text spells this principle out more fully than 2 Thess. 1: 5-8"¦
5 which is manifest evidence of the righteous judgment of God that you may be counted worthy
of the kingdom of God, for which you also suffer. 6 since it is a righteous thing with God to repay
with tribulation those who trouble you, 7 and to give you who are troubled rest with us when the
Lord Jesus is revealed 8 in faming fire taking vengeance on those who did not know God, and
those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ.
To be sure, with his phrase "œthe righteousness of God," Paul is speaking of God´s gift of righteousness,
not his punitive justice. The point simply is that Wright´s assertion that God´s righteousness is his
covenantal faithfulness is truncated. The evidence is actually more varied and will not fit Wright´s
reductionism. Having said this, it must be observed that in the main text in which Paul discusses the
righteousness of God, he does so in relation to God´s retributive righteousness (Rom. 3:25-26).96 The
righteousness of God as a gift would not be given if God´s righteousness was not exerted against sinners.
But since God did punish Christ on the cross, he is both just and the justifier of those who have faith in
Christ. Regarding the matter of God´s retributive justice, Blocher´s judgment seems appropriate, "œTextual
facts are so clear-cut and so stubborn that only a tremendous pressure from the spiritual and intellectual
environment explains their disregard by eminent theologians."97
3. Furthermore, on the basis of his civil reading, the declaration of "œrighteous", says Wright,
refers only to the status one had in the eyes of the court; it does not reflect foundational moral behavior.
This scenario flies in the face of a mountain of evidence to the contrary. In the OT, justification or
vindication by the court was to be based on behavior that conformed to the law. God commands Israel´s
judges to "œjustify the righteous and condemn the wicked Deut (25.1)."98 (Notice the assumption here is
that one of the main tasks of a judge was to "œcondemn" the wicked). Justifying the wicked and
condemning the righteous is an abomination to God (Prov. 17:15). God expected the kings of Israel to
judge righteously as well: "œthen hear in heaven and act and judge Your servants, condemning the wicked
bringing his way on his head and justifying the righteous by giving him according to his righteousness" (1
Kings 8:32). In the Psalms of Innocence, the psalmist, against the back drop of a legal setting, cries out
for vindication on the basis of his righteousness: "œThe Lord shall judge the peoples; Judge [Vindicate]
me, O Lord, according to my righteousness and according to my integrity within me" (Psal. 7:8). Yet
Wright says that God himself does not look to the moral behavior of those whom he vindicates.
Commenting on Romans 4:3"”"œAnd Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for
righteousness""”Wrights says, "œPaul does not mean that God was looking for a particular type of moral
95 Wright, Saint Paul, 103. To be clear Wright does think that God punishes sin. He speaks of Christ´s death, for
instance, as penal. But he does not want to attribute such God wrath to his righteousness. Righteousness, for Wright
is covenantal and salvific.
96 Peter T Obrien, "œWas Paul a Covenant Nomist?" in Justificaton and Variegated Nomism: Volume 2"”The
Paradoxes of Paul, ed. D. A. Carson, Peter T. O´brien, & Mark A. Seifried, (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2004),
287, fn. 158.
97 Henri Blocher, "œJustification of the Ungodly (Solo Fide)," in Justificaton and Variegated Nomism: Volume 2"”
The Paradoxes of Paul, ed. D. A. Carson, Peter T. O´brien, & Mark A. Seifried, (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic,
2004), 476.
98 Deut. 1:16-17; Exod. 23:7; Isa. 5:23.
27
goodness (referred to as "œrighteousness") that would earn people membership in the covenant"¦.nor is
"œrighteousness" the same thing as moral goodness. "œRighteousness," when applied to human beings, is, at
bottom, the status of being a member of the covenant; "œfaith" is the badge, the sign, that reveals that status
because it is its key symptom."99 But looking to and rendering a verdict corresponding to the "œmoral
goodness" or lack thereof of the disputants is precisely what God required of Israel´s judges and kings.
Such behavior is the assumed basis for vindication in Psalms of Innocence, and it is the clear testimony of
the OT that God will not justify the wicked. God "will by no means clearing the guilty (Exod. 34:7).
David declared to Saul "May the Lord repay each man for his righteousness and his faithfulness" (1 Sam.
26:23). (Notice: in David´s mind God will repay his righteousness --sparing Saul´s life--so righteousness
could not here mean covenant status or faithfulness). A judge in Israel was required to justify the
righteous. A judge´s verdict stated not only that a defendant was righteous in the eyes of the court, but
that he was righteous in the eyes of the court because his prior behavior conformed to the law.
To be fair, we must acknowledge that Wright does say that once the verdict of "œrighteous" was
given, and it was carried out of the court, only then could one reason backward to the behavior that
occasioned to the verdict. It must be emphasized that in this way Wright does say that certain behavior
(presumably the "œrighteous" kind) formed the basis of the verdict of "œrighteous." Wright seems to be on
the right track here. But this qualification gives rise to the following question: "œIf the verdict is only about
status and carries no overtones about the prior behavior, how is it possible to reason backward from the
declaration to the behavior that occasioned it?" On the basis of the evidence sampled above, "œrighteous"
was about status and the behavior that occasioned that status. It always carried moral overtones. When
one was justified by the court, his relevant behavior stood vindicated.
To summarize our points, righteousness language, which essentially means conformity to a norm,
was not restricted to covenant. The covenant cannot be said to be part of the meaning of the
righteousness. Remove the covenant concept and righteousness would have been, and indeed was, used
with the same import. In the law-court a judge was commanded and expected to decide the case on the
basis of the merits or conformity to the law relevant to the case and declare his verdict accordingly. The
result was a righteous status and, consequently, one´s prior behavior stood vindicated. Further, judges of
Israel also condemned the guilty, which were then punished by the people. Hardly a civil law-court as
Wright maintains. Thus the OT cannot be used to support Wright´s reading of Paul on justification.

[Edited on 7-25-2005 by puritancovenanter]


----------



## RamistThomist (Jul 24, 2005)

Given that very few mainline british scholars belive in infallibility, I take it as a good sign that Tom does. Outside conservative American circles the distinction between infallibility/inerrancy isn't that sharp. Anyway, I have listened to him defend the ongoing authority of scripture in the face of postmodernism in remarkable ways. Don't mistake me, I do think he is problematic in some of his narratival formulations, but he did get me to think and reason in terms taht I have used in apologetic encounters with much usefulness.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Jul 24, 2005)

Tom's voice when preaching sure is soothing. I'll give him that.


----------



## RamistThomist (Jul 24, 2005)

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> Tom's voice when preaching sure is soothing. I'll give him that.



And that is precisely why I argue we MUST take him seriously, whether to agree or disagree. He is a master rhetorician. His opening statement on the Resurrection against Dominic Crossan was the finest twenty minutes I have ever heard in my life. 

To merely dismiss him and say, "Well, he's just wrong..." will only get us laughed at by the outsiders.

Now, I am not giving a blanket endorsement to everything Tom says. I am just saying that we will have a better understanding of what he says, and grant him the Christian charity he deserves as a scholar, if we find out what he says--even if we are to disagree with him--from..well..himself. Think of it this way: Do you want someone to learn of Calvinism from the critics of Calvin?

[Edited on 7--25-05 by Draught Horse]


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jul 24, 2005)

You have not heard me call him a heretic. I believe his New Paul Perspective is heresy though. He is good at understanding the Biblical Christ. But Catholics are also good at understanding who Christ is. They defend his deity also. They also have some good historical understanding but I don't run out and defend their peculiarness in soteriology.

[Edited on 7-25-2005 by puritancovenanter]


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Jul 24, 2005)

I came away from reading Wright, _What St. Paul Really Said,_ with the sure and certain conviction that only an Arminian could have come up with his theories. His description of the court scenario is simply impossible from Reformed and Calvinistic presuppositions. This, in my view, is why ultimately there will be no harmony with Wright-inspired theology and entrenched Reformed committments. Those who attempt a mediating position will have to acknowledge their hybrid status--that they hold a Reformed soteriology out of preference, but are swayed on key points of theology by Wright's explanations/exegesis.

I said something similar to Jacob, when I called for whoever most values his reformed credentials in the FV Camp to write a book-length defense of Justification, on par with James Buchanan or James White, that builds nothing on disputed texts (i.e. faith of/in Christ passages). Don't you dare tear up a foundation, but still declare your undying commitment to the pillars that it once supported. They will surely vanish in a generation.


----------



## RamistThomist (Jul 24, 2005)

Randy,
No, you didn't call him a heretic. If I said "you" I apologize for the confusion; I meant it generically and referring to others. Yes, Catholics are usually correct on the Deity of Christ, etc. And if their presentation is better than ours (which Van Til admitted that it sometimes is) and can be used with devastating effectiveness against unbelievers, then I will use it regardless of who came up with it. He is an ultra-powerful case for the resurrection that I can use with a clear conscience.

Bruce:
Granted, I think what he said in WSPRS is ultimately incompatible with Reformed theology. Furthermore, I would like to see those in the FV camp publish what they really think about NP(s)P. Furthermore, I would like to see a book-length response to Wright alone. Guy Waters did a good job covering the whole movement but the nature of his argument (and it was a very good argument; his book was very timely) limited the space dealt to Tom Wright. Most people will not be convinced by Ed Sanders (most cannot understand what he says and the parts they do understand are heterodox); however, Tom Wright is much more witty and clear and has the potential to convince more people. I think the brunt of publications need to be directed at him.

Here are some of my own criticisms against Wright, mainly concerning his foundations:

1)He is correct to argue for the appopriation of narrative in theology and interpretation; he is incorrect in his formulation of it. This leads him to...

2)Accepting a faulty epistemological foundation. While I greatly respect Alvin Plantinga and Nick Wolterstorf, I do not like Wright's appropriation of their hermeneutic.

3)His sweeping dismissal of historical theology will undermine his hermeneutic in the end (and I think that is where the bone of contention probably is).

[Edited on 7--25-05 by Draught Horse]


----------



## AdamM (Jul 24, 2005)

> I came away from reading Wright, What St. Paul Really Said, with the sure and certain conviction that only an Arminian could have come up with his theories. His description of the court scenario is simply impossible from Reformed and Calvinistic presuppositions. This, in my view, is why ultimately there will be no harmony with Wright-inspired theology and entrenched Reformed committments. Those who attempt a mediating position will have to acknowledge their hybrid status--that they hold a Reformed soteriology out of preference, but are swayed on key points of theology by Wright's explanations/exegesis.



Excellent point Pastor Buchanan.

I don't think Wright is a heretic, but I agree that those who want to hold to substantial portions of his views on justification should not 
be ruling or teaching elders in the Reformed denominations.


----------



## openairboy (Jul 25, 2005)

> _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> I agree, I have a lot of info running in my mind about this stuff. When I am talking about it, I am also reviewing my past conversations. A guy I discipled, who Pastors now, has bought into NPP. I remember one part of the discussion being that Union with Christ body is essential. Justification had to do with being in the body of Christ. I also remembered that this idea of the righteousness of God being defined as faithfulness to his body.



First, I think it is important to understand that _this_ issue, 'the righteousness of God', has nohthing to do with the NPP. Second, I don't know exactly what you mean by "union Christ's body", but, as a disciple of John Calvin, I would say that "union w/ Christ's body", aka the Church, is essential to salvation. Third, yes, Wright doesn interpret 'justification' as centering around who is in the body of Christ, yet it is important to realize that Wright still believes in the 'imputation of Christ's righteousness'.




> I am not a greek or Latin scholar but I am sure that righteousness means more than God being faithful in the text since it is about reconciliation. He became sin. We become his righteousness. Or at least Paul does. I am sure it is we though. Why this contrast? Because they are antithetical. I think Wright is incorrect because he is twisting this to say something about Paul becoming God's faithfulness by being an ambassador. That doesn't sound like Pauls language.




The argument from the end of ch. 2 is about the Apostolic ministry and not how an individual has a right standing before God. God's means of reconcilaition is the Apostolic ministry. So, yes, it is about reconcilaiton, but how God is accomplishing this throug the Apostles.

openairboy


----------



## openairboy (Jul 25, 2005)

> _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> You have not heard me call him a heretic. I believe his New Paul Perspective is heresy though. He is good at understanding the Biblical Christ. But Catholics are also good at understanding who Christ is. They defend his deity also. They also have some good historical understanding but I don't run out and defend their peculiarness in soteriology.
> 
> [Edited on 7-25-2005 by puritancovenanter]



What exactly are HIS heresies? Is it denying imputation? Is it denying substitutionary atonement? Is it denying the deity of Jesus? What are his specific heresies? What is his NPP?

openairboy


----------



## openairboy (Jul 25, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Contra_Mundum_
> I came away from reading Wright, _What St. Paul Really Said,_ with the sure and certain conviction that only an Arminian could have come up with his theories. His description of the court scenario is simply impossible from Reformed and Calvinistic presuppositions. This, in my view, is why ultimately there will be no harmony with Wright-inspired theology and entrenched Reformed committments. Those who attempt a mediating position will have to acknowledge their hybrid status--that they hold a Reformed soteriology out of preference, but are swayed on key points of theology by Wright's explanations/exegesis.
> 
> I said something similar to Jacob, when I called for whoever most values his reformed credentials in the FV Camp to write a book-length defense of Justification, on par with James Buchanan or James White, that builds nothing on disputed texts (i.e. faith of/in Christ passages). Don't you dare tear up a foundation, but still declare your undying commitment to the pillars that it once supported. They will surely vanish in a generation.



I will siimply go back to my earlier illustration on preterism. MacArthur wants to argue in the same fashion against preterism. If one accepts the preterist hermeneutic then in a generation everyone will end up a hyper-preterist. It's just a bad argument that may try to scare a few people and keep a few in lock step, but it doens't really get anyone anywhere.

My Reformend theology isn't out of preference, but, I believe, upon Biblical exegesis. I just disagree that some traditional proof-texts are addressing that particular issue. So, I fully believe that Jesus will return bodily, I just don't believe Mt. 24 proves that. I still believe in the imputation of Christ's righteousness, I just don't believe 2 Co. 5:21 teaches that.

openairboy

[Edited on 7-25-2005 by openairboy]


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Jul 25, 2005)

Wright doesn't seem to think that Romans 5 teaches it...

And I don't agree that juxtaposing two sets of doctrinal disputes (preterism and justification) equates to the methodological agreement you find. For one thing, arguing about the timing, etc. of the second coming has been a favorite hobby in the church for about as long as its been in existence. Even today there is broad diversity within theological camps that maintain general unity on more central matters.

Second, it's pure dispensationalism (which J.McA. still staunchly holds to) that sees Mt. 24 as a cornerstone text on the Second Coming. Dispensationalism needs large scale texts, with massive amount of data to sift through in order to fill in all the details of Jesus 2nd, 3rd, 4th (how many returns is it?) coming, tribulations, raptures, reconstructed temples--you know. But without a commitment to that school, why should his similar _sounding_ concern seem even remotely relevant? The simplicity of the doctrine of Christ's _future_ return at the end, to judge and renovate everything isn't dependent on Mt. 24 at all.

The bottom line is, I can pull out book length treatments of the Second Coming that are both old and new, and relevant in either case, and a preterist view of Mt. 24 won't change the doctrine they teach. *The same cannot be said for the reinterpretation of many important texts by NPP or FV proponents that eliminate them as keystones supporting the doctrine of Justification.* I think the construction metaphor is quite apt. Witingly or not, these men are pulling stones out of place, without due consideration for the whole theological structure. They love "the walls of Zion," but they seem unconcerned that their labors below have the potential to bring them down.

in my opinion, they owe the Reformed world a robust defense of the doctrine of justification, that is _equal support by other means than the ones they are removing,_ and a demonstration that their "excavations" or explorations do not in fact leave us with a weaker doctrine or complete theological edifice. I reiterate, this is a glaring omission from their labors to date.

[Edited on 7-25-2005 by Contra_Mundum]


----------



## openairboy (Jul 25, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Contra_Mundum_
> Wright doesn't seem to think that Romans 5 teaches it...
> 
> And I don't agree that juxtaposing two sets of doctrinal disputes (preterism and justification) equates to the methodological agreement you find. For one thing, arguing about the timing, etc. of the second coming has been a favorite hobby in the church for about as long as its been in existence. Even today there is broad diversity within theological camps that maintain general unity on more central matters.



ok?



> Second, it's pure dispensationalism (which J.McA. still staunchly holds to) that sees Mt. 24 as a cornerstone text on the Second Coming. Dispensationalism needs large scale texts, with massive amount of data to sift through in order to fill in all the details of Jesus 2nd, 3rd, 4th (how many returns is it?) coming, tribulations, raptures, reconstructed temples--you know. But without a commitment to that school, why should his similar _sounding_ concern seem even remotely relevant? The simplicity of the doctrine of Christ's _future_ return at the end, to judge and renovate everything isn't dependent on Mt. 24 at all.



Uhm, from your perspective, but not the Dispensational. From my perspective the whole "participationist" school easily handles the imputation of Christ's righteousness. It isn't contingent on 2 Co. 5 or even Romans 5 for that matter.




> The bottom line is, I can pull out book length treatments of the Second Coming that are both old and new, and relevant in either case, and a preterist view of Mt. 24 won't change the doctrine they teach. *The same cannot be said for the reinterpretation of many important texts by NPP or FV proponents that eliminate them as keystones supporting the doctrine of Justification.* I think the construction metaphor is quite apt. Witingly or not, these men are pulling stones out of place, without due consideration for the whole theological structure. They love "the walls of Zion," but they seem unconcerned that their labors below have the potential to bring them down.



I disagree.



> in my opinion, they owe the Reformed world a robust defense of the doctrine of justification, that is _equal support by other means than the ones they are removing,_ and a demonstration that their "excavations" or explorations do not in fact leave us with a weaker doctrine or complete theological edifice. I reiterate, this is a glaring omission from their labors to date.



Who does?

openairboy


----------



## JohnV (Jul 25, 2005)

What I'm getting from this discussion is that Wright is advocating a sort of double sanctification, much like Shepherd was calling for a double jusfification. Is he suggesting that the Bible itself is a growing thing, growing in righteousness as we, the Christians, grow from generation to generation? Is he suggesting, for example, that the Bible means more to us than it did in Luther's time, simply because we are more down the road of sanctification when it comes to understanding the Bible? It seeems to me I hear that suggestion coming through. Or am I misunderstanding?


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jul 25, 2005)

> _Originally posted by openairboy_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> ...



Does he or does he not believe in a doctrine called Covenantal Nomism? In my discussions with my friend he does. He believes that you are saved by grace, but then you must keep the law to stay in the faith. 

And I still disagree with his redefining the righteousness of God as being covenantal faithfulness. Remember the antithesis. He became sin. We become the righteousness of God. Paul was telling us he was an ambassador so that we could become the righteousness of God. This isn't that hard to understand. He was saying I am an ambassador of Christ. Here is the message. He became sin so that you could become righteous. Not the covenantal faithfulness of God. A simple message. 

We are sin. He took it and gave us rightousness. Not covenantal faithfulness. *Covenantal Faithfulness would not reconcile us. * What according to the passage does reconcile us? He became sin so that we could become the righteousness of God. We are found Perfect and complete in Christ. Sounds like reconciliation to me.

[Edited on 7-25-2005 by puritancovenanter]


----------



## openairboy (Jul 25, 2005)

> _Originally posted by JohnV_
> What I'm getting from this discussion is that Wright is advocating a sort of double sanctification, much like Shepherd was calling for a double jusfification. Is he suggesting that the Bible itself is a growing thing, growing in righteousness as we, the Christians, grow from generation to generation? Is he suggesting, for example, that the Bible means more to us than it did in Luther's time, simply because we are more down the road of sanctification when it comes to understanding the Bible? It seeems to me I hear that suggestion coming through. Or am I misunderstanding?



No, I don't believe Wright is saying that at all.

openairboy


----------



## AdamM (Jul 25, 2005)

> I still believe in the imputation of Christ's righteousness, I just don't believe 2 Co. 5:21 teaches that.



Keith, I am curious if are you are indicating a rejection of all the traditional Reformed proof texts for imputation or simply 2 Corinthians 5.21? If it is all the traditional texts, then where in the Scriptures would you find support for imputation _ as expressed in WCF 11, HC 60 and Belgic Art. 22?_ 

Thanks. 



> WCF 11.1. Those whom God effectually calleth, he also freely justifieth: not by infusing righteousness into them, but by pardoning their sins, and by accounting and accepting their persons as righteous; not for anything wrought in them, or done by them, but for Christ´s sake alone; nor by imputing faith itself, the act of believing, or any other evangelical obedience to them, as their righteousness; but by imputing the obedience and satisfaction of Christ unto them, they receiving and resting on him and his righteousness, by faith; which faith they have not of themselves, it is the gift of God.





> HC Q & A 60: ""¦though my conscience accuse me that I have grievously sinned against all the commandments of God and kept none of them, and am still inclined to all evil, yet God, without any merit of mine, of mere grace, grants and imputes to me to perfect satisfaction, righteousness, and holiness of Christ, as if I had never had nor committed any sin, and myself had accomplished all the obedience which Christ has rendered for me; if only I accept such benefit with a believing heart."





> Belgic Art. 22: ""¦Jesus Christ, imputing to us all His merits, and so many holy works which He has done for us and in our stead, is our righteousness."


----------



## openairboy (Jul 25, 2005)

> _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> Does he or does he not believe in a doctrine called Covenantal Nomism? In my discussions with my friend he does. He believes that you are saved by grace, but then you must keep the law to stay in the faith.



Where does Wright teach this? Just be sure you know what HE believes before you readily throw-out the heresy bomb. 



> And I still disagree with his redefining the righteousness of God as being covenantal faithfulness. Remember the antithesis. He became sin. We become the righteousness of God. Paul was telling us he was an ambassador so that we could become the righteousness of God. This isn't that hard to understand. He was saying I am an ambassador of Christ. Here is the message. He became sin so that you could become righteous. Not the covenantal faithfulness of God. A simple message.
> 
> We are sin. He took it and gave us rightousness. Not covenantal faithfulness. That would not reconcile us.



We'll just have to disagree. I'm not convinced the point suddenly changes from the Apostolic ministry to how individual's stand before God, esp. given the previous 2 chapers, esp. 4:7+. Also, to jump from how an individual is accredited righteousness to "working together with him, then..." doesn't follow.

I'm convinced this section 2:13-6:10 is defending the Apostolic ministry.

openairboy


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jul 25, 2005)

> We'll just have to disagree. I'm not convinced the point suddenly changes from the Apostolic ministry to how individual's stand before God, esp. given the previous 2 chapers, esp. 4:7+. Also, to jump from how an individual is accredited righteousness to "working together with him, then..." doesn't follow.
> 
> I'm convinced this section 2:13-6:10 is defending the Apostolic ministry.
> 
> openairboy



Then where is the flow for us becoming New Creatures in Christ? Couldn't he be defending his ministry and the message which is why he has a ministry from the LORD? In other words if you are going to defend the ministry you probably are going to defend it's purpose also. That being the gospel message. His name shall be called Jesus, For He shall save his people from there sin.

There still is a redefinition problem here you are not addressing? In what lexicon is the word translated righteousness defined faithfulness, or righteouness of God defined covenantal faithfulness? I could be incorrect sense I have limited abilities.

[Edited on 7-25-2005 by puritancovenanter]


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jul 25, 2005)

> _Originally posted by openairboy_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> ...



I believe it is in his second temple law court teaching. I will find out.


----------



## openairboy (Jul 25, 2005)

> _Originally posted by AdamM_
> 
> 
> > I still believe in the imputation of Christ's righteousness, I just don't believe 2 Co. 5:21 teaches that.
> ...



Thanks for the good question. First, I think 1 Co. 1:30 is the best "proof-text" for this issue (At work so can't search through texts, but there are others. And, I have a lot more work in Romans before I say too much there). Second, I think it is a doctrine that is properly derived from the life of Jesus Christ, from his baptism in identification with sinners to rising for our vindication. Everything that is true of Christ is true of me, because I am in him. In both a "positional" sense ('raised with him in the heavenlies') and what is being worked out in my life. Third, this may be where I step away from certain camps of "Reformed" theology, at least as it is _centered_ on an individuals "justification", when I read through the Gospels I don't find "how is an individual made right before God?" as the central topic. When I read through Acts, I don't find this as the central issue. I'm not saying it isn't an issue, but it doesn't rise as the centrality of all things. Jesus Christ, who God raised from the dead, is the true Lord of all is central. So, why should I find it to be Paul's central theme? I don't. So, reading from the Gospels and moving into Paul, it changes the light in which I read him. 

Personally, I think we assume what Paul means and then work backwards to Jesus, seeking to find "how is an individual made right before God?" In the end, I think much of Reformed theology is way too man centered and not Christocentric, despite claims to the contrary.

I will say, when I read through the Bible I find the central theme as the Lordship of YHWH. From Gen. 1 to Rev. 22 the Lordship of YHWH is central. A friend of mine (a graduate of WTS) said, "The central theme of the Bible is how an individual is made right before God." I disagree with that, which effects the way we view various texts. That doesn't mean I disagree with some of his conclusions, but it often means we arrive there differently.

openairboy


----------



## JohnV (Jul 25, 2005)

> _Originally posted by openairboy_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by JohnV_
> ...


Then what could he mean by "sanctification" if he has changed the meaning of "righteousness"?


[Edited on 7-25-2005 by JohnV]


----------



## openairboy (Jul 25, 2005)

> _Originally posted by JohnV_
> Then what could he mean by "sanctification" if he has changed the meaning of "righteousness"?[Edited on 7-25-2005 by JohnV]



Hi John,

Honestly, I don't recall having read anything by Wright on sanctificaiton. A more thorough Pauline work is due out in Sept/Oct by him, so maybe that will shed more light on the issue.

openairboy


----------



## Robin (Jul 25, 2005)

> _Originally posted by openairboy_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by JohnV_
> ...



Hey guys,

Here are some better resources....

http://www.wscal.edu/resources/West...rnia-Foolishness_of_the_Gospel_Conference.htm

http://www.banneroftruth.org/pages/articles/article_detail.php?186

http://www.wscal.edu/resources/Justification_Faculty_Symposium.htm

Robin


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jul 25, 2005)

openairboy


> * I just don't think playing link tag will really get us anywhere. *



Robin, I have since tried not to post links but discuss this from the texts and knowledge I have already. I agreed with Keith that playing link tag is somewhat troublesome sometimes. 

They are good though.

[Edited on 7-25-2005 by puritancovenanter]


----------



## AdamM (Jul 25, 2005)

> Thanks for the good question. First, I think 1 Co. 1:30 is the best "proof-text" for this issue (At work so can't search through texts, but there are others. And, I have a lot more work in Romans before I say too much there). Second, I think it is a doctrine that is properly derived from the life of Jesus Christ, from his baptism in identification with sinners to rising for our vindication. Everything that is true of Christ is true of me, because I am in him. In both a "positional" sense ('raised with him in the heavenlies') and what is being worked out in my life. Third, this may be where I step away from certain camps of "Reformed" theology, at least as it is centered on an individuals "justification", when I read through the Gospels I don't find "how is an individual made right before God?" as the central topic. When I read through Acts, I don't find this as the central issue. I'm not saying it isn't an issue, but it doesn't rise as the centrality of all things. Jesus Christ, who God raised from the dead, is the true Lord of all is central. So, why should I find it to be Paul's central theme? I don't. So, reading from the Gospels and moving into Paul, it changes the light in which I read him.
> 
> Personally, I think we assume what Paul means and then work backwards to Jesus, seeking to find "how is an individual made right before God?" In the end, I think much of Reformed theology is way too man centered and not Christocentric, despite claims to the contrary.
> 
> ...



Keith thank you for your reply. I think the interaction on this thread is proving to be very helpful. I have some thoughts in response, but I won't be able to pull them all together until tomorrow, but in the meantime, I wanted to at least acknowledge your answer.


----------



## JohnV (Jul 25, 2005)

> _Originally posted by openairboy_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by JohnV_
> ...



Its just that growing in righteosness is what we normally call sanctification, the work of the Holy Spirit. But with the redefinition of "righteousness", that too would have to have a new meaning. For example, if growing in righteousness is growing in faithfulness in the covenant, as different from conforming to God's image, then sanctification would also not include growing holiness so much as fuller membership. 

Just thinking out loud, so to speak.


----------



## Robin (Jul 28, 2005)

> _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> openairboy
> 
> 
> ...



Martin,

You have a good point, "link tag" might not be useful... It depends on the link, perhaps. Some of us that refer links attempt to broaden the understanding of the discussion with solid and responsible material; and also to provide the reasons behind the our statements. (There is a difference between opinion and argument. By argument-I do not mean quarrel.)

An opinion is completely useless because it is subjective. An argument can be good or bad depending on the reasons supporting it; be they accurate or erroneous. Calvin speaks of "sophist arguments, not worthy of response" - because they are mere opinion, having no reasoning behind them.

I have close, personal ties with most links I've referred. That might be different for others? In any case, linking for me, is not about showing-off....it is sharing information with a desire to edify others, longing that the encouragement or wisdom I have received might be passed on. I am prepared to argue/interact with links I refer, and am content to do so.

With respect, 

Robin


----------

