# N.T. Wright and the Reformed view of salvation



## biblelighthouse

I have started reading a bit of N.T. Wright's stuff . . . I am curious regarding what all the fuss is about.

From what I can tell, he *retains* the Reformed teaching on justification, but he gives it the word "call". Then, he uses the word "justification" to refer to that which occurs *afterward* in the ordo salutis.

As Wright himself says:



> For myself, it may surprise you to learn that I still think
> of myself as a Reformed theologian, retaining what seems to me the substance of Reformed theology while moving some of the labels around in obedience to scripture "“ itself, as I have suggested, a good Reformed sort of thing to do.



In other words, he does NOT reject the Reformed doctrine of how a person receives salvation. He just thinks the word "justification" is a bad word to use for it. I cannot say that I agree with him. But I have to wonder why he should be anathematized for it. After all, isn't the underlying doctrine the most important thing, rather that the terminology?

Here is more directly from Wright, regarding his views of the "call" and "justification":



> I have already described how Paul understands *the moment when the gospel of Jesus as Lord is announced and people come to believe it and obey its summons.* Paul has a regular technical term for this moment, and that technical term is neither "˜justification´ nor "˜conversion´ (though he can use the latter from time to time): *the word in question is "˜call´.* "˜Consider your call´, he says to the Corinthians; "˜God called me by his grace´, he says of himself.
> 
> But if the "˜call´ is the central event, the point at which the sinner turns to God, what comes before and after? Paul himself has given the answer in Romans 8.29"“30. Though he does not often discuss such things, he here posits two steps prior to God´s "˜call´ through the gospel: God´s foreknowledge, and God´s marking-out-ahead-oftime, the mark in question being the mark of the image of the Son.
> 
> But what matters for our purposes even more is the question of what comes after the "˜call´. "˜Those he called, he also justified´. In other words, *Paul uses "˜justify´ to denote something other than, and logically subsequent to, what we have often thought of as the moment of conversion*, when someone who hasn´t before believed the gospel is gripped by the word and the Spirit and comes to believe it, to submit to Jesus as the risen Lord. Here is the central point in the controversy between what I say about Paul and what the tradition, not least the protestant tradition, has said. The tradition has used "˜justify´ and its cognates to denote conversion, or at least the initial moment of the Christian life, and has then debated broader and narrower definitions of what counts. My reading of Paul indicates that he does not use the word like that; and my method, shared with the reformers, insists that I prefer scripture itself to even the
> finest traditions of interpretation. The fact that the Christian tradition has since at least Augustine used the word "˜justify´ to mean "˜become a Christian´, whether broadly or narrowly conceived, is neither here nor there. *For Paul, "˜justification´ is something that follows on from the "˜call´ * through which a sinner is summoned to turn from idols and serve the living God, to turn from sin and follow Christ, to turn from death and believe in the God who raised Jesus from the dead.




And elsewhere:



> Paul´s view seems to be that when the evangelist announces the "˜word´, God the Spirit works through that proclamation to bring people to faith. Paul has a very precise technical term which he uses to denote this moment, and it is not of course "˜justification´, but "˜call´. "˜Those he called, them he also justified.´




Also, I have heard some people suggest that Wright throws traditional justification out the window, in favor of focusing on Jew-Gentile relations. But from what I can tell, this is NOT true. This is not a case of either/or . . . rather, it is a case of both/and. Wright retains the Reformed doctrine of justification, AND he believes that the whole Jew/Gentile reconcilliation is intimately bound up together with it in Paul's theology. As Wright says here:



> I thus discover that my call, my Reformational call, to be a faithful reader and interpreter of scripture impels me to take seriously the fact, to which many writers in the last two hundred years have called attention, that whenever Paul is talking about justification by faith he is also talking about the coming together of Jews and Gentiles into the single people of God. I did not make this up; it is there in the God-given texts. *I do not draw from this observation the conclusion that some have done* (I think particularly of Wrede and Schweitzer), namely *that justification is itself a mere secondary doctrine*, called upon for particular polemical purposes but not at the very centre of Paul´s thought. *On the contrary: *since the creation, through the preaching of the gospel of Jesus Christ, of this single multi-ethnic family, *the family God promised to Abraham, the family justified, declared to be in the right, declared to be God´s people, on the basis of faith alone, the family whose sins have been forgiven through the death of the Messiah in their place and on their behalf*, the family who constitute the first-fruits of the new creation that began with the bodily resurrection of Jesus "“ since the creation of this family was the aim and goal of all Paul´s work, and since this work was by its very nature polemical, granted the deeply suspicious pagan world on the one hand and the deeply Law-based Jewish world on the other, it was natural and inevitable that Paul´s apostolic work would itself involve polemical exposition of the results of the gospel, and that* justification by faith, as itself a key polemical doctrine, would find itself at the centre* when he did so.




Also, listen to N.T. Wright's powerful and unequivocal stance on the penal substitutionary atonement:



> 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.




Finally, here are some of Wright's own words concerning our salvation by faith in Christ:



> *Those who believe the gospel; those, that is, in whose hearts and lives the Spirit has been at work by the word to produce the faith that Jesus is Lord and the belief that God raised him from the dead *"“ these people are assured, as soon as they believe, that they are dikaioi, in the right. *They are declared to be righteous*; the verb dikaioo has that declarative force, the sense of something being said which creates a new situation, as when a minister says "˜I pronounce that they are husband and wife´ or when a judge says "˜I declare that the defendant is not guilty´.




If you would be so kind, please *thoroughly* read what Wright said at the 2003 Rutherford House Conference, and in this 2005 AAPC lecture.

Then, after completely reading both articles, please help me understand why N.T. Wright has been anathematized by some Reformed people. If he *retains* the Reformed view of salvation, but just calls it by a different word, then what's the problem? If he adds the Jew/Gentile relationship question into the mix, but still *retains* the traditional view regarding salvation by faith alone, then what's the problem? If N.T. Wright affirms the penal substitutionary view of the atonement, then what's the problem?

I do not yet see why I should consider N.T. Wright as heterodox. But perhaps I am just missing something.






[Edited on 12-22-2005 by biblelighthouse]


----------



## DTK

> In other words, he [i.e., N. T. Wright] does NOT reject the Reformed doctrine of how a person receives salvation. He just thinks the word "justification" is a bad word to use for it. I cannot say that I agree with him. But I have to wonder why he should be anathematized for it. After all, isn't the underlying doctrine the most important thing, rather that the terminology?


I think I understand from where you're coming. You don't realize the gravity of what is being said. The man just thinks that this biblical terminology is a bad word to describe how a person receives salvation. Well, you know, let's just say that I don't like the word "salvation" to describe what a person receives from God. Now, though I say that, I can't really say I disagree with the Bible, but I wonder if people should anathematized me for it. After all, isn't the underlying doctrine the most important thing, rather that the terminology I've used?

The problem is that this terminology is the language God himself has chosen to use to describe one act in the salvation of his people. Without even broaching how Wright proceeds to define what he means by justification or salvation, what you don't seem to understand is this - people, individuals, indeed churches, don't become bastions of heresy overnight. They begin to drift into heresy before they become heretics. We're seeing a drift, just as we all here are witnessing your tendency to drift in the sense of not recognizing this drift for what it is. That's what makes such movements so dangerous; it's only gradually that they begin to renounce and then replace God's terminology with their own.

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


> *N. T. Wright:* "˜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 Sanders´ 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." See p. 119 of _What Saint Paul Really Said_.


I can see the trouble with Wright. But the fact that you can't see the problem with it, doesn't mean that others of us can't. He does reject "the Reformed doctrine of how a person receives salvation," notwithstanding your insistence otherwise. He himself recognizes that he is departing from "standard" Reformed theological language, whether you do or not. He is (not so subtly at all) replacing soteriology (the doctrine of salvation) with ecclesiology (the doctrine of the church). What he grants with one hand, he takes away with the other.

DTK


----------



## biblelighthouse

> _Originally posted by DTK_
> He does reject "the Reformed doctrine of how a person receives salvation," notwithstanding your insistence otherwise. He himself recognizes that he is departing from "standard" Reformed theological language, whether you do or not. He is (not so subtly at all) replacing soteriology (the doctrine of salvation) with ecclesiology (the doctrine of the church). What he grants with one hand, he takes away with the other.



Pastor King,

Now that you have made your assertion, are you going to back it up? Or am I supposed to believe Wright totally rejects Reformed soteriology, just because you say that he does?

I would much prefer to see a real discussion on this thread, rather than mere mudslinging with assertions that aren't backed up.

Also, I started this post asking everyone to read two specific articles by N.T. Wright, *before* replying. Did you do that? Even if you did read them, you didn't bother to respond to either of them. After reading the two articles I posted, what exactly is it that you think Wright has said in them that is heretical?



I'm not claiming to have any major knowledge of N.T. Wright. Like I said before, I just started reading a little bit of his stuff . . . wondering what all the fuss is about. I wonder whether this guy is really a heretic, or whether the real problem is a high concentration of trigger-happy anathema-slinging attitudes, just looking for a scapegoat. Don't just TELL me Wright get's your goat. If you want to convince me, then SHOW ME where Wright denies the Gospel. When I read the two articles I posted above, it looks to me like he BELIEVES the Gospel. So until I am shown otherwise, I will not anathematize a brother in Christ.


----------



## fredtgreco

Joseph,

You do realize that there is a difference between an unbeliever and a dangerous teacher, don't you? I don't think that I ever said that Wright was a pagan - but *because* he presumes to be a teacher in Christ's Church, he has greater responsibility and greater judgment.

Or should we start recommending Arminians as men who can correct the errors of Calvinism? Charismatics as guides to the doctrine of Holy Spirit?

I have written something short on why Wright is not Reformed, that Matt posted to his site:
http://www.apuritansmind.com/ChristianWalk/GrecoFredWhyWrightNotReformed.htm


----------



## DTK

> _Originally posted by biblelighthouse_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by DTK_
> He does reject "the Reformed doctrine of how a person receives salvation," notwithstanding your insistence otherwise. He himself recognizes that he is departing from "standard" Reformed theological language, whether you do or not. He is (not so subtly at all) replacing soteriology (the doctrine of salvation) with ecclesiology (the doctrine of the church). What he grants with one hand, he takes away with the other.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pastor King,
> 
> Now that you have made your assertion, are you going to back it up? Or am I supposed to believe Wright totally rejects Reformed soteriology, just because you say that he does?
> 
> I would much prefer to see a real discussion on this thread, rather than mere mudslinging with assertions that aren't backed up.
> 
> Also, I started this post asking everyone to read two specific articles by N.T. Wright, *before* replying. Did you do that? Even if you did read them, you didn't bother to respond to either of them. After reading the two articles I posted, what exactly is it that you think Wright has said in them that is heretical?
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not claiming to have any major knowledge of N.T. Wright. Like I said before, I just started reading a little bit of his stuff . . . wondering what all the fuss is about. I wonder whether this guy is really a heretic, or whether the real problem is a high concentration of trigger-happy anathema-slinging attitudes, just looking for a scapegoat. Don't just TELL me Wright get's your goat. If you want to convince me, then SHOW ME where Wright denies the Gospel. When I read the two articles I posted above, it looks to me like he BELIEVES the Gospel. So until I am shown otherwise, I will not anathematize a brother in Christ.
Click to expand...

No, I have simply communicated my perception to you and have told you why. I will not accept the manner in which you process people's posts, nor will I respond to what I perceive as caricatures in your replies. You strike me as an individual who overreacts, and who goes off on tangents. I'm not really interested in arguing my perception with you. I am of the opinion that in spite of all your protests notwithstanding that you do not read or listen very well. But that's just my perception.

Cheers,
DTK


----------



## Ex Nihilo

> _Originally posted by DTK_
> I think I understand from where you're coming. You don't realize the gravity of what is being said. The man just thinks that this biblical terminology is a bad word to describe how a person receives salvation. Well, you know, let's just say that I don't like the word "salvation" to describe what a person receives from God. Now, though I say that, I can't really say I disagree with the Bible, but I wonder if people should anathematized me for it. After all, isn't the underlying doctrine the most important thing, rather that the terminology I've used?
> 
> The problem is that this terminology is the language God himself has chosen to use to describe one act in the salvation of his people.



Wright is not arbitrarily changing the terminology because he doesn't like it. He's suggesting that when the Bible uses the terminology "justification," it is not referring directly to salvation, but rather to the act by which God's people are set apart from the world. He also maintains that justification and salvation, while not exactly the same thing, are intimately connected and inseparable, like a wheel and an axle. (One interesting aspect of Wright's definition of justification, then, is that--whether his system is right or wrong--the discussion of the relationship of works to justification in James cannot _possibly_ support any notion of works salvation.)

Therefore, Wright is maintaining that the terminology as _he_ presents it is the accurate representation of the language God has chosen. You might disagree with this, but instead of just assuming that the traditional interpretation of the terminology is the most Biblical, you would have to show reasons why Wright's analysis of the Biblical termionology is not, as he claims, more true to the actual Biblical text. In any case, precisely because of the importance of understanding the Bible's terminology, which you point out, Wright's points may be worth consideration, if only to refute them adequately. His analysis of the terminology, whether it is good or bad, is an exegetical issue, and I know it would be helpful for me to see it treated and refuted as such.


----------



## DTK

> _Originally posted by Ex Nihilo_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by DTK_
> I think I understand from where you're coming. You don't realize the gravity of what is being said. The man just thinks that this biblical terminology is a bad word to describe how a person receives salvation. Well, you know, let's just say that I don't like the word "salvation" to describe what a person receives from God. Now, though I say that, I can't really say I disagree with the Bible, but I wonder if people should anathematized me for it. After all, isn't the underlying doctrine the most important thing, rather that the terminology I've used?
> 
> The problem is that this terminology is the language God himself has chosen to use to describe one act in the salvation of his people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wright is not arbitrarily changing the terminology because he doesn't like it. He's suggesting that when the Bible uses the terminology "justification," it is not referring directly to salvation, but rather to the act by which God's people are set apart from the world. He also maintains that justification and salvation, while not exactly the same thing, are intimately connected and inseparable, like a wheel and an axle. (One interesting aspect of Wright's definition of justification, then, is that--whether his system is right or wrong--the discussion of the relationship of works to justification in James cannot _possibly_ support any notion of works salvation.)
> 
> Therefore, Wright is maintaining that the terminology as _he_ presents it is the accurate representation of the language God has chosen. You might disagree with this, but instead of just assuming that the traditional interpretation of the terminology is the most Biblical, you would have to show reasons why Wright's analysis of the Biblical termionology is not, as he claims, more true to the actual Biblical text. In any case, precisely because of the importance of understanding the Bible's terminology, which you point out, Wright's points may be worth consideration, if only to refute them adequately. His analysis of the terminology, whether it is good or bad, is an exegetical issue, and I know it would be helpful for me to see it treated and refuted as such.
Click to expand...

I think you have misunderstood me. I was not trying to prove my understanding of "justification" is correct and that Wright is wrong. My whole point was, as Wright himself has admitted (and which I don't think proof is needed), is that he believes that the Reformers all got it wrong when it comes to the meaning of justification biblically, and that he got it right. He defines justification different than the Reformed tradition.

Cheers,
DTK


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Precisely Evie. 

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

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

[Edited on 12-26-2005 by puritancovenanter]


----------



## Ex Nihilo

> _Originally posted by DTK_
> 
> I think you have misunderstood me. I was not trying to prove my understanding of "justification" is correct and that Wright is wrong. My whole point was, as Wright himself has admitted (and which I don't think proof is needed), is that he believes that the Reformers all got it wrong when it comes to the meaning of justification biblically, and that he got it right. He defines justification different than the Reformed tradition.
> 
> Cheers,
> DTK



Yes, he does. But if Wright's definition is more Biblical (as he claims it is and presents reasons to support), then why is this bad? I was suggesting that if you want to show why Wright's scholarship is dangerous, you would _need_ to try to prove that your understanding of justification is correct and that Wright's is wrong. And I'll tell you my bias: I certainly grant that _Wright_, as the proponent of a countertraditional definition, absolutely has the burden of proof. My point is that it would be helpful to me to see his exegetical reasons for his terminology directly refuted rather than presumed wrong on the outset.

[Edited on 12-26-2005 by Ex Nihilo]


----------



## VanVos

I recommend this teaching by John Robbins

The Theology of N. T. Wright http://www.trinitylectures.org/MP3/Wright_Collection13.mp3

Now granted, John Robbins hasn't always represented his opponents accurately, but if what he is saying here is accurate then we have much reason to be concerned with Wright's teachings.

[Edited on 12-26-2005 by VanVos]


----------



## wsw201

I find this thread somewhat amazing. After all the threads we have had on this guy, why in the world would we waste another one? 

As has been noted in previous threads, NT Wright is not in anyway, shape form or fashion, Reformed. Much less does he believe in the "Reformed view of Salvation". Now Wright can call it what he wants, it really doesn't matter because Wright denies the key element of the Gospel; imputation. Without imputation, Justification is meaningless. Which makes any term he wants to use meaningless. 

So he can call it a "calling" or "justification" or the "Easter Bunny", it doesn't matter. NO IMPUTATION, NO JUSTIFICATION; NO JUSTIFICATION, NO SALVATION; NO SALVATION, NO HOPE; NO HOPE THEN WE ARE ON OUR OWN BOYS AND GIRLS SO EAT DRINK AND BE MERRY BECAUSE TOMORROW WE DIE!


----------



## Ex Nihilo

> _Originally posted by wsw201_
> I find this thread somewhat amazing. After all the threads we have had on this guy, why in the world would we waste another one?
> 
> As has been noted in previous threads, NT Wright is not in anyway, shape form or fashion, Reformed. Much less does he believe in the "Reformed view of Salvation". Now Wright can call it what he wants, it really doesn't matter because Wright denies the key element of the Gospel; imputation. Without imputation, Justification is meaningless. Which makes any term he wants to use meaningless.



Why is it meaningless? Wright does _not_ deny that the believer is, by faith, counted righteous:



> *From http://www.ntwrightpage.com/Wright_New_Perspectives.pdf*:
> 
> What then can we say about the status of 'righteous' which, in many Pauline passages, is enjoyed by the people of God in Christ? For Paul, there is a clear distinction. God's own righteousness is _dikaiosune theou_. The status of 'righteous' which people enjoy as a result of God's action in Christ and by the Spirit is, in Philippians 3.9, _he ek theou dikaiosune_, the righteous status which is 'from God'.



If imputation is indeed "the key element of the gospel," it ought to be so clearly supported in the text that Wright's exegetical arguments should be easy to answer (and for those with more training in hermeneutics than I, they may very well be). In any case, whether Wright is correct or not in his analysis of imputation, I have yet to see how this destroys the gospel.

And why do we continue having threads about Wright? Because Wright's real exegetical arguments have not been answered sufficiently for many of us on the board, and plenty of PBoarders keep turning to Wright himself and finding that what they read _in_ Wright doesn't exactly square with what they read _about_ Wright here. Wright himself suggests that exegesis is where his work needs to be answered:



> *From http://www.ntwrightpage.com/Wright_New_Perspectives.pdf*, emphasis added:
> 
> Speaking as one those who is regularly thus carpet-bombed, what I find frustrating is the refusal of the traditionalists to do three things: first, to differentiate the quite separate types of New Perspective; _second, to engage in the actual exegetical debates upon which the whole thing turns, instead of simply repeating a Lutheran or similar line as thought that settled matters_; and third, to recognise that some of us at least are brothers in Christ who have come to the positions we hold not because of some liberal, modernist or relativist agenda but as a result of prayerful and humble study of the text which is and remains our sole authority. Of course, prayer and humility before the text do not guarantee exegetical success. We all remain deeply flawed at all levels. But that is precisely my point. If I am _simul iustus et peccator_, the church, not least the church as the scripture-reading community, must be _ecclesia catholica semper reformanda_. Like Calvin, we must claim the right to stand critically within a tradition. To deny either of these would be to take a large step towards precisely the kind of triumphalism against which the Reformers themselves would severely warn us. But if we are siblings in Christ there are, I think, appropriate ways of addressing one another and of speaking about one another, and I regret that these have not always characterized the debate.



In my mind, the issue isn't settled until 1) Wright's exegetical points are refuted, and 2) serious implications to the doctrines of salvation are demonstrated, not just assserted.


----------



## NaphtaliPress

The 2005 issue of _The Confessional Presbyterian_ has the following on Wright:
A Critical Examination of N. T. Wright´sDoctrine of Justification
By J. V. Fesko, Ph.D.
Subscriptions available at http://www.cpjournal.com
This from the author's intro:


> Central to Wright´s claim is that justification is about ecclesiology, not soteriology. If Wright´s claim about justification is true, then, needless to say the NPP represents something of a Copernican revolution in the Church´s understanding of the Scriptures. This essay will argue that the NPP, specifically Wright´s doctrine of justification, represents an incorrect reading of the NT. The traditional protestant reading, more specifically as it comes from reformed confessionalism, as it comes through the Westminster Standards, is still correct.3 To demonstrate Wright´s errors we will first examine his doctrine of justification as he has presented it in his popular and academic works. Second, the essay will critique his views on justification demonstrating that reformed confessionalism still represents the teaching of the Scriptures. The essay will then conclude with some observations.


----------



## fredtgreco

> _Originally posted by NaphtaliPress_
> The 2005 issue of _The Confessional Presbyterian_ has the following on Wright:
> A Critical Examination of N. T. Wright´sDoctrine of Justification
> By J. V. Fesko, Ph.D.
> Subscriptions available at http://www.cpjournal.com
> This from the author's intro:
> 
> 
> 
> Central to Wright´s claim is that justification is about ecclesiology, not soteriology. If Wright´s claim about justification is true, then, needless to say the NPP represents something of a Copernican revolution in the Church´s understanding of the Scriptures. This essay will argue that the NPP, specifically Wright´s doctrine of justification, represents an incorrect reading of the NT. The traditional protestant reading, more specifically as it comes from reformed confessionalism, as it comes through the Westminster Standards, is still correct.3 To demonstrate Wright´s errors we will first examine his doctrine of justification as he has presented it in his popular and academic works. Second, the essay will critique his views on justification demonstrating that reformed confessionalism still represents the teaching of the Scriptures. The essay will then conclude with some observations.
Click to expand...


This is what a dozen or so of us have been saying for more than 2 years, except Fesko's essay is much better written and clearer.

Sorry if I don't experience waves of pleasure at every mention of the Uberbishop's name.


----------



## NaphtaliPress

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> Sorry if I don't experience waves of pleasure at every mention of the Uberbishop's name.


_
[size=-2]Nor speak in hushed tones. Oooh. Aaah.[/size]_


----------



## AdamM

Great responses as usual.

I would only add the slight correction that Wright in his construct of justification is not simply rejecting the Reformed understanding of the doctrine, but that of the Western church post-Augustine. With that in mind, I have to confess to being a bit skeptical that the Lord would have His church so miss the main thrust of such an important doctrine for over 1500 years. I guess it's a good thing Uber Bishop finally showed up to fix things.

- - 

One more thought, isn't it a bit strange that our confessional understanding of the doctrine is what gets put in the dock, instead of the new "insights"? It's as if Western Church history and especially our Reformed confessional tradition simply counts for nothing and all it takes is E.P. Sanders and Tom Wright churning out a few books and folks get weak in the knees. I guess today we're all Campbellites sitting under a tree picking up our Bibles for the first time.


[Edited on 12-27-2005 by AdamM]


----------



## fredtgreco

> _Originally posted by AdamM_
> Great responses as usual.
> 
> I would only add the slight correction that Wright in his construct of justification is not simply rejecting the Reformed understanding of the doctrine, but that of the Western church post-Augustine. With that in mind, I have to confess to being a bit skeptical that the Lord would have His church so miss the main thrust of such an important doctrine for over 1500 years. I guess it's a good thing Uber Bishop finally showed up to fix things.
> 
> - -
> 
> One more thought, isn't it a bit strange that our confessional understanding of the doctrine is what gets put in the dock, instead of the new "insights"? It's as if Western Church history and especially our Reformed confessional tradition simply counts for nothing and all its takes is EP Sanders and Tom Wright churning out a few books and folks get weak in the knees. I guess today we're all Campbellites sitting under a tree picking up our Bibles for the first time.
> 
> [Edited on 12-26-2005 by AdamM]



No, don't you know that everybody just hid their Bibles in a closet? No Reformer ever actually _read_ his Bible. No Puritan could ever <gasp> use _Biblical_ language.

Thank heavens for the UberBishop, who believes in the complete authority and inerrancy of...the... Bib... Oh, never mind.


----------



## fredtgreco

And, yes folks, the ever vigilant defenders of the Uberbishop continue to seek out every possible criticism of their hero. On Christmas Day no less!!

Pretty Much Says it All

Of course, it stands to reason that we should all reject the analysis of countless elders, several denominations, several PCA Presbyteries, and theologians of note, because someone has read a tiny bit of a portion of Wright's work.

[Edited on 12/26/2005 by fredtgreco]


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

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



**BUMP**

P.S. Joe is out of town and doesn't have much access to the PB. So I am sure he will reply when he gets back home. He hasn't even been able to read the thread.


----------



## AdamM

> And, yes folks, the ever vigilant defenders of the Uberbishop continue to seek out every possible criticism of their hero. On Christmas Day no less!!



Ah yes Fred another flare gets launched. 

The bottom line for me is that if justification is mainly about ecclesiology (as opposed to soteriology) as Wright claims then WSC Q33 would be a pretty poor definition of the doctrine. The very best one could say if they buy into Wright's view is that the Reformed standards missed the mark by a wide margin in regard to capturing the essence of what the Bible teaches in regard to justification. If a peron believes that is so, I frankly cannot see how anyone who takes such a view can honestly subscribe to the Westminster Standards as faithful summary of Bibles teaching, when on such a key point according to the Wright the Reformed confessions missed the main point? I would think a person would be conscience bound to make it clear to their fellow elders that they don't believe at least in regards to justification that the standards present an adequate summary of the doctrine. 



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





> WLC Q. 70. What is justification?
> A. Justification is an act of God's free grace unto sinners, in which he pardoneth all their sins, accepteth and accounteth their persons righteous in his sight; not for anything wrought in them, or done by them, but only for the perfect obedience and full satisfaction of Christ, by God imputed to them, and received by faith alone.



[Edited on 12-27-2005 by AdamM]


----------



## wsw201

> _Originally posted by Ex Nihilo_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by wsw201_
> I find this thread somewhat amazing. After all the threads we have had on this guy, why in the world would we waste another one?
> 
> As has been noted in previous threads, NT Wright is not in anyway, shape form or fashion, Reformed. Much less does he believe in the "Reformed view of Salvation". Now Wright can call it what he wants, it really doesn't matter because Wright denies the key element of the Gospel; imputation. Without imputation, Justification is meaningless. Which makes any term he wants to use meaningless.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why is it meaningless? Wright does _not_ deny that the believer is, by faith, counted righteous:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *From http://www.ntwrightpage.com/Wright_New_Perspectives.pdf*:
> 
> What then can we say about the status of 'righteous' which, in many Pauline passages, is enjoyed by the people of God in Christ? For Paul, there is a clear distinction. God's own righteousness is _dikaiosune theou_. The status of 'righteous' which people enjoy as a result of God's action in Christ and by the Spirit is, in Philippians 3.9, _he ek theou dikaiosune_, the righteous status which is 'from God'.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If imputation is indeed "the key element of the gospel," it ought to be so clearly supported in the text that Wright's exegetical arguments should be easy to answer (and for those with more training in hermeneutics than I, they may very well be). In any case, whether Wright is correct or not in his analysis of imputation, I have yet to see how this destroys the gospel.
> 
> And why do we continue having threads about Wright? Because Wright's real exegetical arguments have not been answered sufficiently for many of us on the board, and plenty of PBoarders keep turning to Wright himself and finding that what they read _in_ Wright doesn't exactly square with what they read _about_ Wright here. Wright himself suggests that exegesis is where his work needs to be answered:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *From http://www.ntwrightpage.com/Wright_New_Perspectives.pdf*, emphasis added:
> 
> Speaking as one those who is regularly thus carpet-bombed, what I find frustrating is the refusal of the traditionalists to do three things: first, to differentiate the quite separate types of New Perspective; _second, to engage in the actual exegetical debates upon which the whole thing turns, instead of simply repeating a Lutheran or similar line as thought that settled matters_; and third, to recognise that some of us at least are brothers in Christ who have come to the positions we hold not because of some liberal, modernist or relativist agenda but as a result of prayerful and humble study of the text which is and remains our sole authority. Of course, prayer and humility before the text do not guarantee exegetical success. We all remain deeply flawed at all levels. But that is precisely my point. If I am _simul iustus et peccator_, the church, not least the church as the scripture-reading community, must be _ecclesia catholica semper reformanda_. Like Calvin, we must claim the right to stand critically within a tradition. To deny either of these would be to take a large step towards precisely the kind of triumphalism against which the Reformers themselves would severely warn us. But if we are siblings in Christ there are, I think, appropriate ways of addressing one another and of speaking about one another, and I regret that these have not always characterized the debate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In my mind, the issue isn't settled until 1) Wright's exegetical points are refuted, and 2) serious implications to the doctrines of salvation are demonstrated, not just assserted.
Click to expand...


Evie,

The question is "How and why is a believer "counted" righteous". I don't know if you have a copy of Wright's book "What St. Paul Really Said", which is suppose to be the definitive book that explains his position quite clearly, start at page 96 through 99. Here he defines the Law Court and how God's righteousness works. 

The following is a quote from that section:

"The result of all of this should be obvious, but is enormously important for understanding Paul. If we use the language of the law court, it makes no sense whatsoever to say that the judge imputes, imparts, bequeaths, conveys or otherwise transfers his righteousness to either the plantiff or the defendant. Righteousness is not an object, a substance or a gas which can be passed across a court room."

And:

"But the righteousness they will have be God's own righteousness. That makes no sense at all. God's own righteousness is his own covenant faithfulness, because of which he will (Israel hopes) vindicate her, and bestow upon her the status of "righteous", as the vindicated or acqitted defendant."

These are just a few quotes. You may think I have taken them out of context so I would recommend you read this section for yourself. But from these quotes, you can see that I am not simply making assertions but am relaying what Wright actually wrote about the issue!

As far as dealing with his exegisis, a number of heavy weight theologians have been doing this for years now. The article by Fesko that Chris noted is very good, plus men like Sinclair Ferguson (who knows Wright personally), Lig Duncan and Cornelius Venema have also considered Wrights work and have found it wanting.

Concerning your comments about imputation, how else can a sinner be declared righteous? Does not the OT sacraficial system point to the imputation of sin from the sinner to the animal being sacrificed? Does not Christ fulfill this in His life and death as the perfect sacrifice? Is not Adam's sin imputed to his posterity and know Christ, who fulfilled what Adam in his own strength, the Second Adam, his righteousness imputed to those whom He died for and His elect's sin imputed to Him on the cross? Without the imputation of Christ's righteousness we stand before Wright's law court with only our own righteousness, and do you think that will be good enough? As Reformed folk we both know that it will not do. And that is why imputation is at the heart of the Gospel message. Without imputation, we are on our own before God's law court.


----------



## AdamM

> No, don't you know that everybody just hid their Bibles in a closet? No Reformer ever actually read his Bible. No Puritan could ever use Biblical language.



Oh yes Fred, there you go bringing up the old Biblical language trump card again. I should have remembered that Wright uses Biblical language and of course the Reformed standards don't. 



> Thank heavens for the UberBishop, who believes in the complete authority and inerrancy of...the... Bib... Oh, never mind.



Yep, the same person who exegetes Paul and somehow finds a warrant for women elders. Of course since Wright is the Uberexegete and folks in our Reformed circles are held back by a bunch of unbiblical, logic chopping confessions we must defer to the bishop. Maybe one of these days if we progress and give up our confessional hangups, our guys (and gals) can start producing really good stuff like the Windsor Report?


----------



## biblelighthouse

As Randy kindly pointed out above, I have limited access to the PB this week. I am in Illinois with my wife and children, visiting my wife's family. 

I was hoping to return to this thread, finding some good arguments, clearly explaining what is wrong with N.T. Wright's view of salvation presented in the two articles I posted above.

But I have been sadly disappointed. As far as I can tell, no one except Evie and Randy even bothered to read the two articles I posted. (Thank you Evie for your excellent posts!!) But it looks like the rest of you are not interested in respecting my original request in this thread. I asked you to read two articles *before* posting, and then to respond with those in mind.

Instead, several of you have just decided to play the adolescent game of "let's bash the Anglican". I'm all for bashing heterodoxy, but for goodness sakes, please use genuine *arguments* rather than ungrounded name-calling! "N.T. Wright is dangerous!" "N.T. Wright is a heretic!" "N.T. Wright denies the gospel!" . . . so are you suggesting that merely _saying_ something makes it so? If only it were so easy to do theology!

If you want to lambast N.T. Wright's theology, then I *welcome* you to do so. But PLEASE respect my 2 requests:

1) Please read the two articles I originally posted in this thread, BEFORE posting.

2) Please don't just use bare name-calling. Use a real argument.


I have not read any of N.T. Wright's books on justification, or the "new perspective", or whatever. In this thread, I would like to actually *learn* something, and that isn't going to happen unless someone is willing to provide me with some hard data showing why Wright is (or is not) denying the gospel. According to the limited reading I've done so far, especially including the two articles above, I see no reason to think that Wright denies the gospel. But I am willing to change my thinking. That's why I am asking these questions.


From reading the 2 articles above, it looks to me like THIS is what N.T. Wright believes concerning the gospel:

1) The Holy Spirit works by the Word in peoples hearts to produce faith that Jesus is Lord, and that God raised Him from the dead.

2) When a person comes to have faith in Jesus, God does not make the person righteous. Rather, God declares that person righteous.

3) God is able to declare the person righteous, because of the penal substitutionary atonement. Jesus died in our place, according to Isaiah 53.


Now, suppose that you had been witnessing to a person for months. Then, that person tells you from her heart that she believes the 3 things listed above. She says that she believes Jesus is Lord, and that God raised Him from the dead. She says that she herself is not righteous, but that God has declared her righteous. And she recognizes that God declares her righteous due to the penal substitutionary atonement . . . Christ died in her place. --- If she said all of this to you, would you believe that she is saved? Or would you accuse her of believing a false gospel?

After all, isn't the above list orthodox, regardless of what *label* you choose to give it? 

Or, after reading the above two articles, do you think that I have somehow misunderstood what N.T. Wright believes about salvation?

Help me out here. Please give me arguments, rather than mere mud-slinging.


----------



## biblelighthouse

> _Originally posted by wsw201_
> Without the imputation of Christ's righteousness we stand before Wright's law court with only our own righteousness



First of all, N.T. Wright does NOT believe that we just have our "own righteousness". He does not say that God *makes* us righteous. Rather, he says that God *declares* us righteous.

Second, how can your assertion be true, since N.T. Wright emphatically *accepts* the penal substitutionary atonement? Wright clearly voices his belief that the penal substitutionary atomement of Jesus Christ is in view in Isaiah 53.

You didn't read the two articles I originally posted, did you?


----------



## wsw201

With all due respect Joesph, it's a bit arrogant of you to assume that no one except Evie has read these articles. I have read both of them a while back, before you ever posted them. The problem is that Wright isn't saying anything in these articles that he hasn't said before or written about! There is nothing revelatory about them.

What I would suggest you do is read more about Wright and you will see what I mean.


----------



## biblelighthouse

> _Originally posted by wsw201_
> With all due respect Joesph, it's a bit arrogant of you to assume that no one except Evie has read these articles.



With all due respect, Wayne, it's a bit arrogant of you to assume that I knew you read those articles, since you didn't take the time to tell me, or to bother responding to them.

On the contrary, Evie and Randy were the only two people courteous enough to actualy *acknowledge* the articles, as well as my actual *questions*. Apparently the rest of you just want to hijack the thread for some other purposes.



> _Originally posted by wsw201_
> I have read both of them a while back, before you ever posted them.



Great! Then you should be able to tell me what you think is wrong with them! Please do!



> _Originally posted by wsw201_
> What I would suggest you do is read more about Wright and you will see what I mean.



It looks like that's what I will HAVE to do, since no one on this thread is courteous enough to answer my questions. 

So far, I haven't read anything that sounds like he is denying the gospel. I'll just keep reading, and then maybe I'll stumble over it myself eventually. Thanks a lot for pointing me in the right direction! (not!)


----------



## wsw201

Well Joseph, I didn't know it was a requirement to acknowledge whether one had read the articles before one could post! Sorry I missed that. I have to remember to read the fine print.

Regarding your two questions from your original post about terminology and Wright's view of the Substitutionary Atonement, DTK answered the first one but you didn't seem to like the answer.

Regarding the atonement, this is where imputation comes in, and Wright denies it.


----------



## biblelighthouse

> _Originally posted by wsw201_
> Regarding your two questions from your original post about terminology and Wright's view of the Substitutionary Atonement, DTK answered the first one but you didn't seem to like the answer.



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

He asserted (but did not prove) that God gave us a certain terminology we should use, and that Wright isn't using it. But *never once* did DTK point out what is wrong with DTK's view of salvation, in light of the two articles I posted.



> _Originally posted by wsw201_
> 
> Regarding the atonement, this is where imputation comes in, and Wright denies it.



And how exactly does that compromise the gospel?

I repeat: 
Wright explicitly believes in the penal substitutionary atonement. He believes that Christ died in my place, so that God could declare me righteous.

*You and I both disagree with Wright on the specific point of imputation.* Fine. But how does that make him a heretic? Does a Christian have to understand double-imputation to be saved, or it it simply enough for him to believe that "Jesus died in my place"?

When the gospel is presented to people throughout Scripture, and they become Christians (i.e. the Ethiopian eunuch, the Philippian jailer, Lydia, Paul, etc.) how often do you see any talk about imputation? Please enlighten me!

*I agree imputation is an important doctrine. * But I trusted in Christ alone for my salvation for YEARS before I had ever even HEARD of the imputed righteousness of Christ! I simply believed that Jesus died in my place and paid for my sins, and that was ENOUGH for my salvation!

Salvation merely requires faith in the Son of God being a substitute in your place, paying the price for all your sins. Your theology does not have to be any fancier than that.
--- Please don't add anything to the simple gospel!


----------



## fredtgreco

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

Anyone of us (David, Wayne, Adam, or others) could have said to you: in order to understand Wright's comments, you need to read Owen's _Treatise on the Holy Spirit_ (especially regarding regeneration), Piper's _Counted Righteous_, Fesko's critique, Calvin on Justification, or a number of other works. But you seem to be completely unwilling to learn the basics of accepted Protestant/Reformed soteriology before demanding in-depth interaction with the Uber bishop.

Also, there is no "Anglican bashing" here. J.C. Ryle is, I would guess, a favorite author of everyone I have mentioned. The fact is, that Wright does not believe that the Bible is inerrant. No less a "TR" than Andrew Sandlin has drawn that conclusion as well. If you think that does not affect a man's view of justification, you need to restudy the doctrine of Bibliology. Wright has also interpreted the "Biblical" language of the texts to determine that women may be elders in Christ's Church. That gives insight into his exegesis.

You also obviously have not done a simple search on Wright here on this forum or on Monergism.com or on the Paul Page: ( http://www.thepaulpage.com/#Challenging )
each of which have much material on Wright. I really don't understand why I have to distill Duncan, Ferguson, Fesko, Linden et al simply because you demand so, and when I don't it is somehow my fault that you don't understand.

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

http://www.puritanboard.com/forum/post.php?action=reply&fid=110&tid=14511


> _Originally posted by Contra_Mundum_
> Wright's "courtroom" is not Paul's "courtroom". Wright has the individual come to the court and decide whether he wants to be on Jesus' side or the other side. But the biblical court is set up very differently. In the biblical court Jesus stands on one side and all humanity stands on the other side. All humanity is guilty before God. How does one get out from under the sentence of "guilty"? This is Paul's point. And its one Wright doesn't seem to get. How can Christ's righteousness, the declaration of God's favor to him be transferred to me?
> 
> God's already declared me guilty! I can't just get up and walk across the courtroom and say, "Hey there King Jesus, I was just screaming filthy epithets at you until 5 minutes ago, when the gavel cane down, but you know, ever since I was condemned, your Lordship has been looking pretty good to me, so I'm now on your side! 'Kay? Cool." What right have I got to do that? Man, I don't even _want_ to do that! In my sin I still want to kill Christ and the Father!
> 
> Wright is committed to libertarian free-will. So that's why he thinks the condemned have been given this chance to see what the verdict "in the middle of history is" and choose which side they want to end up on. Wright can't seem to comprehend Luther's, and the Reformed's view of Paul's argument. He certainly doesn't appreciate its power. And for the Reformed's stance, Wright's substitue arrangement is equally incomprehensible, given the facts.
> 
> The only way out from under the GUILTY verdict is by God's translation of the person out of the DOCK, and into Christ by a sovereign act of mercy. Because before God declared *him* NOT GUILTY, he poured out his wrath in indignation upon "him who knew no sin," becoming sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in him. Wright is not Reformed. He cannot incorporate a Reformed understanding into his arrangement.





> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> Wright is saying exactly what Bruce has assessed:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Despite the long popularity of [the view that the righteousness of God refers to a righteousness given to humans], the overwhelming weight of Jewish evidence, including many passages in scripture that Paul either quotes or alludes to, push us decisively into [the fact that] the righteousness of God´ must refer to God´s own righteousness (WSPRS p. 103)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the covenant status Paul now enjoys is the gift of God: it is a dikaiosune ek theou, a "˜righteousness from God´"¦ Paul here is referring to the status of covenant membership; it is the gift of God, not something acquired in any way by the human beings involved (124)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If we use the language of the law court, it makes no sense whatever to say that the judge imputes, imparts, bequeaths, conveys or otherwise transfers his righteousness to either the plaintiff or the defendant. Righteousness is not an object, a substance or a gas which can be passed across the courtroom (98)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What Paul is saying is that he and his fellow apostles"¦are not just talking about God´s faithfulness; they are actually embodying it"¦ If, however, you insist on reading 2 Corinthians 5:21 with a meaning [of] "˜imputed righteousness´ "“ you will find, as many commentators have, that it detaches itself from the rest of the chapter and context, as though it were a little floating saying which Paul just threw in here for good measure (105)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is difficult to squeeze any precise dogma of justification out of this shorthand summary {1 Cor 1:30}. It is the only passage I know where something called "˜the imputed righteousness of Christ´ a phrase more often found in post-Reformation theology and piety than in the New Testament, finds any basis in the text (123)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This popular view of "˜justification by faith´ [i.e. Lutheran and Reformed view, that which owes a good deal both to the controversy between Pelagius and Augustine and between Luther and Erasmus], though not entirely misleading, does not do justice to the richness and precision of Paul´s doctrine (113)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Especially what of this:
> 
> 
> 
> baldly put, if you start with the popular view {i.e. the Reformed view} of justification, you may actually lose sight of the heart of the Pauline gospel (113)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wright is constantly taking away with one hand what he purports to give with the other. His use of "not so much as" is especially imprecise and useless for a theologian.
Click to expand...


----------



## Scott Bushey

Joseph,
Why is it that you are always arguing for the controversial, i.e. Paedocommunion, FV, N.T. Wright. Why waste your time reading those that have been or are being escorted outside the gate? There are far too many good writers, orthodox brothers to read than waste one's time on those whoms reputations are being challenged by the community at large. 

Have you read Owens works on the book of Hebrews? Edwards' work? There is just too much _good_ stuff out there to ponder over than waste one's time with the questionable.


----------



## DTK

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


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

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

Cheers,
DTK


----------



## biblelighthouse

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



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

I _never asked_ you to demonstrate that Wright totally redefines the word "justification". Far the the contrary, I fully *granted* that he does just that!

Rather, my argument basically went like this:

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

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

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

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

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


----------



## DTK

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

Cheers,
DTK


----------



## AdamM

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

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

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

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



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


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon

{Moderator}

Jospeh, 

You need to answer DTK.


----------



## biblelighthouse

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



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

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

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



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



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



> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> Wright does not believe that the Bible is inerrant.



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




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



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




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



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

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



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


----------



## biblelighthouse

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



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

However, you did say this:



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



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


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

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


----------



## biblelighthouse

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

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

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

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

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


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


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon

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

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

Here are some reasons why:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Heresy!

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

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

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


----------



## DTK

> DTK, if you honestly had no intention to use your words to construe N.T. Wright as a heretic, then I misunderstood you. But to me, your words were just as good as if you had said, "N.T. Wright is a heretic." I had no intention to misrepresent you.
> 
> If you do not believe he is a heretic, then I am glad to hear that. Apparently I understood your words incorrectly.


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

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

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

Cheers,
DTK


----------



## biblelighthouse

DTK, 

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




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


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia

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


----------



## DTK

> _Originally posted by biblelighthouse_
> DTK,
> 
> I already freely admitted that you never actually said the words, "N.T. Wright is a heretic."


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

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

DTK


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

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



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



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



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

[Edited on 12-27-2005 by puritancovenanter]


----------



## Ex Nihilo

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



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

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


----------



## Ex Nihilo

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

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



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



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



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



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



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



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

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


----------



## Saiph

> _Originally posted by C. Matthew McMahon_
> I don't want to be misunderstood - so I'll try to be as clear as possible.
> 
> Wright is a *heretic*. A _heresiarch_. He will forever burn under God's righteous wrath and under the solemn and scornful gaze of the Lamb of God for all eternity if he does not change his theological views before he dies, or rather, his lack of good theology! He is a false teacher, and one of the most influential heretics of the century because he affected people at the seminary level - where pastors are trained and scholars born - and has infected a good number of churches, right down to the layman and youth of the day.




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


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

> _Originally posted by Saiph_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by C. Matthew McMahon_
> I don't want to be misunderstood - so I'll try to be as clear as possible.
> 
> Wright is a *heretic*. A _heresiarch_. He will forever burn under God's righteous wrath and under the solemn and scornful gaze of the Lamb of God for all eternity if he does not change his theological views before he dies, or rather, his lack of good theology! He is a false teacher, and one of the most influential heretics of the century because he affected people at the seminary level - where pastors are trained and scholars born - and has infected a good number of churches, right down to the layman and youth of the day.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Given the reasons you posted for this unscrupulous and insolent assertion it would follow that you also would condemn every theologian before Luther to the same retribution ? ? ?
Click to expand...


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


----------



## Saiph

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



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

I would welcome others to share them if so.



[Edited on 12-27-2005 by Saiph]


----------



## fredtgreco

> _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> Precisely Evie.
> 
> I would like to read someones critique of this paper. It uses language or what appears to be exegesis of the Greek. I don't know how to respond to it because I can't argue against what he says concerning the Greek. I don't buy what he says but I would like to know if its discussion concerning the Greek is credible. I have heard others discuss this passage but not refute his understanding of the Greek text.
> 
> Anyone know where I can find a critique of this paper?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> **BUMP* again* Pastor King, Can you help me with this?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _posted by Fred_
> The fact is, that Wright does not believe that the Bible is inerrant. No less a "TR" than Andrew Sandlin has drawn that conclusion as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have heard this also. Fred can you direct me to a reference for my benefit of passing the info along in a good solid way.
> 
> [Edited on 12-27-2005 by puritancovenanter]
Click to expand...


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


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

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



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

Thanks for trying to help me Fred.

[Edited on 12-27-2005 by puritancovenanter]


----------



## Contra_Mundum

> _Originally posted by Ex Nihilo_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Contra_Mundum_
> Wright is committed to libertarian free-will. So that's why he thinks the condemned have been given this chance to see what the verdict "in the middle of history is" and choose which side they want to end up on. Wright can't seem to comprehend Luther's, and the Reformed's view of Paul's argument. He certainly doesn't appreciate its power. And for the Reformed's stance, Wright's substitue arrangement is equally incomprehensible, given the facts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wright is _not_ committed to libertarian free will. *In fact, he rather explicitly affirms that God elects some and not others.* .... He considers himself a Calvinist, and while I agree that he is not a _good_ Calvinist, he still holds to rather Calvinistic views on this particular issue of the role of the individual's choice in salvation. Here's what N.T. Wright himself says about the way salvation comes about:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *From: http://www.ntwrightpage.com/Wright_New_Perspectives.pdf*
> 
> [M]y understanding of how Paul supposed someone became a Christian is, I think, basically orthodox and indeed reformed. God takes the initiative, based on his foreknowledge; the preached word, through which the Spirit is at work, is the effective agent; belief in the gospel, that is, believing submission to Jesus as the risen Lord, is the direct result. My central point is that _this isn't what Paul is referring to when he speaks of 'justification'._ But the substance of what reformed theology, unlike Paul, has referred to by means of that word remains. Faith is not something someone does as a result of which God decides to grant them a new status or privilege. Becoming a Christian, in its initial moment, is not based on anything that a person has acquired by birth or achieved by merit. Faith is itself the first fruit of the Spirit's call. And those thus called, to return to Philippians 11.6, can be sure that the one who began a good work in them will complete it at the day of Christ.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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


----------



## Ex Nihilo

> _Originally posted by Contra_Mundum_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Ex Nihilo_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Contra_Mundum_
> Wright is committed to libertarian free-will. So that's why he thinks the condemned have been given this chance to see what the verdict "in the middle of history is" and choose which side they want to end up on. Wright can't seem to comprehend Luther's, and the Reformed's view of Paul's argument. He certainly doesn't appreciate its power. And for the Reformed's stance, Wright's substitue arrangement is equally incomprehensible, given the facts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wright is _not_ committed to libertarian free will. *In fact, he rather explicitly affirms that God elects some and not others.* .... He considers himself a Calvinist, and while I agree that he is not a _good_ Calvinist, he still holds to rather Calvinistic views on this particular issue of the role of the individual's choice in salvation. Here's what N.T. Wright himself says about the way salvation comes about:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *From: http://www.ntwrightpage.com/Wright_New_Perspectives.pdf*
> 
> [M]y understanding of how Paul supposed someone became a Christian is, I think, basically orthodox and indeed reformed. God takes the initiative, based on his foreknowledge; the preached word, through which the Spirit is at work, is the effective agent; belief in the gospel, that is, believing submission to Jesus as the risen Lord, is the direct result. My central point is that _this isn't what Paul is referring to when he speaks of 'justification'._ But the substance of what reformed theology, unlike Paul, has referred to by means of that word remains. Faith is not something someone does as a result of which God decides to grant them a new status or privilege. Becoming a Christian, in its initial moment, is not based on anything that a person has acquired by birth or achieved by merit. Faith is itself the first fruit of the Spirit's call. And those thus called, to return to Philippians 11.6, can be sure that the one who began a good work in them will complete it at the day of Christ.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Evie,
> If by "libertarian free will" you are thinking of free will that can "take initiative" under any circumstances, I can only say I was not thinking in such narrow terms by my use of the term. Philosophers can draw fine distinctions through the sand of freewill positions, but my distinctions are going to be the big ones: bondage (in Luther's sense) and libertarian. I do not deny _liberty_ in the Bible's sense, but it is a conditional liberty with limits fixed accoding to nature. And based on my reading of Wright, I think he is Arminian. You may have a different perception, and have read more of him, and be more correct than I am. Fine. I can live with that, but I'll need more data to be persuaded.
> 
> The line of your's I *bolded*, that position (in those words) will not be denied by an Arminian. What we want to know is: what is the basis for the election? Why are some elected and others not?
> 
> Let me interact now with Wright's words above:
> 1) "became a Christian" How does Wright define "Christian" here? Does he mean what the AA Conference has declared, the FV theology? Does he mean "covenant objectivity" in the sense that has recently been promoted? If so, then he and I are starting off speaking about different things altogether. But to press on...
> 
> 2) "my understanding...is...indeed reformed" Does Wright mean reformed in the sense that Anglicans regularly use the phrase, as a synonym for Protestant, that is in a sense that _embraces and includes_ Arminianism? Even Archbishop Laud could have been "reformed" by some such definition.
> 
> 3) "takes the initiative" Does Wright mean salvation is thoroughly monergistic, from start to finish?
> 
> 4) "based on his foreknowledge" Well, this is of course _Scriptural_ language, and not subject to dispute, right? But I think that in the context of explanation of his influential views, it would be helpful if he would spell out the definition of foreknowledge--forelove? (calvinistic), or foresight? (arminian).
> 
> 5) "belief...is the direct result [of the preached Word]" Is the faith he is speaking of something "excited" in them by the Spirit and the Word, or is it something that is itself gracious?
> 
> Wright is not getting any clearer by this presentation. This is a public opportunity, but he threads the needle and avoids getting pinned down to doctrinal specifics. Why? I think he does not want to be "systematized". By only using "biblical terminology" he comes off as both pious and above the "17th century stereotypical arguments."
> 
> 6) "this isn't what Paul is referring to when he speaks of 'justification'" Well, so far he hasn't described justification according to Reformed teaching either, so he seems to me to be attacking a straw-man here. Where in all this verbiage is a discussion of the forensic Reformed doctrine of justification? He hasn't even mentioned it. We would say that "becoming a Christian" _involves_ justification. It is more-or-less central to the ORDO SALUTIS, a kind of preliminary climax, to be followed by additional blessings. But most of what Wright has described up to this point we would place under the category of "Effectual Calling" and possibly "Conversion".
> 
> 7) "But the substance..." Reformed _terminology_ is set in opposition to Reformed _theology_. But we are encouraged to suppose that (minus the exegetical support that Wright wants to apply in completely different directions) the "substance" of Reformed theological understanding remains. But are we really left with the robust theology we once had, before Wright reinterpreted core texts? Of course not.
> 
> If there was a stronger way to make the case, I think Wright would have done that as well. But he doesn't really think in Reformed theological categories, so he isn't interested in reestablishing Reformed principles of imputation on some other basis. In fact, he fairly well denies the doctrine of imputation period. He throws us a bone here and there and says, "There you go; make something with these scattered few verses that might speak to your constructs, if you can. _But leave my ecclesiastical *justification* alone._
> 
> 8) "Faith is not... [with] result... God decides..." Again, I think that someone who has already claimed to believe in "divine initiative" has no problem using this language, even if they ultimately believe in something completely different by it that we do. Wright is *not embarrased* to be called an eccumenicist. He is very open about it. This kind of language can be interpreted in a friendly way by the Reformed, Lutherans, Arminians (broad evangelicals), and even ROME. Why should we be satisfied with statements that do not pin a man's theology down?
> 
> 9) "Becoming a Christian, *in its initial moment*, is not ... birth ... [or] merit" So, staying a Christian has to do with merit? Yes, I do believe that is the direction Wright takes this point...
> 
> 10) "Phil. 1:6" His final sentence speaks of subjective assurance that the believer "can" have. And Paul is certain;y encouraging Christians to rejoice in such assurance. But didactically, he is also teaching that What God began, GOD _will_ finish. Paul is speaking monergistically. I am not at all sure that Wright is.
> 
> 
> 
> In conclusion, I suppose that you and others might say that this is tendentious reading. Why not read the man charitably? Do you have to read him picking up the negatives in every line? But we have to go back and ask why does the question arise? Isn't it because the man is unorthodox in many respects? Haven't his own writings opened him up for criticism? He has earned our skepticism; he is not the hapless victim.
> 
> I will not say whether the man is born again or not. I'm glad many people's faith is better than their theology. I think even the pope can go to heaven... as long as he is a poor Romanist. And I think there is a much better hope for Arminians, even Anglican ones, because more of the true faith is out in the open among them. Anyway, that's the way I see it. Cheers...
Click to expand...


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

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

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

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


----------



## DTK

> _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> Precisely Evie.
> 
> I would like to read someones critique of this paper. It uses language or what appears to be exegesis of the Greek. I don't know how to respond to it because I can't argue against what he says concerning the Greek. I don't buy what he says but I would like to know if its discussion concerning the Greek is credible. I have heard others discuss this passage but not refute his understanding of the Greek text.
> 
> Anyone know where I can find a critique of this paper?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> **BUMP* again* Pastor King, Can you help me with this?
Click to expand...

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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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

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


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


I don´t know how his last sentence here could be set in any clearer contrast to the words of Paul in 1 Corinthians 15:1-2, _1 Moreover, brethren, I declare to you the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received and in which you stand, 2 by which also you are saved, if you hold fast that word which I preached to you -- unless you believed in vain._. Paul tells us quite clearly that the gospel proclaimed by him is the one by which the Corinthians "œare saved." Yet Wright tells us that, in his reading of Paul, the gospel is distinguished from "œhow" we "œcan be saved." Now, maybe it´s just me and a whole host of others who have missed what Wright sees so clearly. In 1 Cor 15:1-4, the Pauline emphasis on the Lordship of Christ is not so much explicitly stated by Paul as it is assumed when he articulates for us the Gospel which he received and in which they (the Corinthians) stand. Paul´s emphasis there in 1 Cor 15:1-4, when he explicitly articulates the Gospel, shows an emphasis on both the substitutionary death of Christ and his resurrection from the dead, not on some reduced declaration that Christ is Lord. Of course, Christ is Lord! But is that the emphasis and/or focus of Paul in his articulation of the Gospel message? I answer no. But Wright wants to cast Paul´s words in Romans 1:ff against the background of Isaiah 40 and 52, and then informs us that his position on "œthe righteousness of God" ( I suppose he´s referring to Rom 1:17) is to be understood as "œGod´s covenant faithfulness." Now, this point has not been established exegetically from the text, so what exegesis is there at this point to be engaged? The man is simply theologizing the passages rather than engaging them exegetically. But again, we have his disclaimer upfront, don´t we?
When we get to page 6, we are greeted with what appears to be an attempt at exegesis..



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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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

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


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


The man never interacts exegetically with...

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

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

or 

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

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

Cheers,
DTK


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon

> _Originally posted by Ex Nihilo_
> 
> 
> 
> With all due respect, Dr. McMahon, if we are saved by belief in good theology _beyond_ our belief that Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who was crucified and resurrected, is Lord, then I would have to fear for my own salvation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If Wright is going to go to hell for what he believes when he affirms all of this, I wonder what exactly _is_ necessary for salvation.
Click to expand...


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

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

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

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


----------



## wsw201

Evie,

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

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


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


----------



## Ex Nihilo

> _Originally posted by wsw201_
> Evie,
> 
> Because a lot of things can get lost here in virtual reality, I would recommend you take your concerns about Wright and his various positions to your Elders there at Pineville. As I have said before, no one on this board is responsible for your soul. That responsibility belongs to the Elders of your church.
> 
> You are asking important questions and we can only do so much here on this message board. Obviously you are getting quite a variety of answers and opinions, with the majority being negative towards Wright's position. So it might help to talk to someone face to face. I believe Jack Sawyer is the pastor at Pineville? Talk to him or one of the RE's. They should be able to help.



I think this is excellent advice...


----------



## Saiph

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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


----------



## Saiph

> By 'the gospel' Paul does not mean 'justification by faith' itself. He means the announcement that the crucified and risen Jesus is Lord. To believe this message, to give believing allegiance to Jesus as Messiah and Lord, is to be justified in the present by faith (whether or not one has even heard of justification by faith). Justification by faith itself is a second-order doctrine: to believe it is both to have assurance (believing that one will be vindicated on the last day [Rom. 5.1-5]) and to know that one belongs in the single family of God, called to share table-fellowship without distinction with all other believers (Gal. 2.11-21). But one is not justified by faith by believing in justification by faith (this, I think, is what Newman thought Protestants believed), but by believing in Jesus.
> 
> 'Justification' is thus the declaration of God, the just judge, that someone is (a) in the right, that their sins are forgiven, and (b) a true member of the covenant family, the people belonging to Abraham. That is how the word works in Paul's writings. It doesn't describe how people get in to God's forgiven family; it declares that they are in.
> 
> N.T. Wright




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

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

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


----------



## fredtgreco

> _Originally posted by Saiph_
> Belief entails more than the rigid doctrine of sola fide. How God justifies us is more mysterious than just alien forensic righteousness placed upon us. I find the reformed idea to be an oversimplification.
> 
> Hebrews 11:6
> And without faith it is impossible to please him, for whoever would draw near to God must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who seek him.
> 
> Jude 1:5
> Now I want to remind you, although you once fully knew it, that Jesus, who saved a people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed those who did not believe.
> 
> Faith is existential throughout the Gospels and new testament record. It is lived out in spite of understanding, and seems to involve more of the human will than many reformed people I speak with will admit.
> 
> How does Wright's idea of righteousness actually contradict reformed theology ? I think it augments it.
> 
> Rom 3:20 For by *works of the law no human being will be justified in his sight,* since through the law comes knowledge of sin.
> 
> Are we justified by Christ's works of the law ? Or was Christ justified before God because He perfectly obeyed them ? Is it the actual righteousness of Christ imputed to us and infused in us by the power of the Holy Spirit ? Note the following verse:
> 
> Rom 3:21 But now the *righteousness of God* has been manifested *apart from the law,* although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it--
> 
> Rom 3:22 the righteousness of God * through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe.* For there is no distinction:
> Rom 3:23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,
> Rom 3:24 and are justified by his grace *as a gift*, through the redemption that is *in* Christ Jesus,
> Rom 3:25 whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. *This was to show God's righteousness*, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins.
> Rom 3:26 It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.
> Rom 3:27 Then what becomes of our boasting? It is excluded. By what kind of law? By a law of works? *No, but by the law of faith.*
> Rom 3:28 For we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law.
> 
> Christ's work is applied for us first, and granted to us through the baptism of the Spirit.
> 
> 
> Rom 16:25 Now to him who is able to strengthen you according to my gospel and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery that was kept secret for long ages
> Rom 16:26 but has now been disclosed and through the prophetic writings has been made known to all nations, according to the command of the eternal God, *to bring about the obedience of faith-- *
> Rom 16:27 to the only wise God be glory forevermore through Jesus Christ! Amen.
> 
> The righteousness of God is simply "the obedience of faith".



Mark,

The historic Reformed position is that the "righteousness of God" is the righteousness of Christ that is given to the believer (and this is true regardless of a double or single imputation scheme).

Wright's has redefined the "righteousness of God" to mean His covenantal faithfulness, which He imparts to us, and we are righteous through covenantal faithfulness. That is why Wright has no real doctrine of perseverance, because one can never really be sure whether one has enough covenantal faithfulness.

I believe that Wright does not follow the errors of many of the FV crowd in holding out the difficult route of covenantal faithfulness. Instead, for Wright, once you are in, you are in. That is why Wright calls for table fellowship with Rome. For Wright, the only real sin that can affect one's standing before God is to fail to be as inclusive as he is (and hence fall into the error that he says the Pharisees had - relying on "covenant badges" ).


----------



## Saiph

Fred, a few serious questions for you then:



> The historic Reformed position is that the "righteousness of God" is the righteousness of Christ that is given to the believer (and this is true regardless of a double or single imputation scheme).



Would that be the righteousness (obedience to the law) before the incarnation, or during the incarnation ? Because I see a logical contradiction of it being obedience in an existential sense. The laws of God are not for God they are for us. They reflect His perfect nature, but He himself is not subject to them. How could God commit adultry ? And God has every right to be jealous and "covet" our allegiance because everything is His to begin with. We break the laws by demanding or practicing what are divine prerogatives. He grants the civil government to power to bear the sword and carry out divine judgment, but none of us should murder, or kill at will for our own reasons. God can righteously kill for His own reasons however, without appealing to any court but Himself.



> Wright's has redefined the "righteousness of God" to mean His covenantal faithfulness, which He imparts to us, and we are righteous through covenantal faithfulness. That is why Wright has no real doctrine of perseverance, because one can never really be sure whether one has enough covenantal faithfulness.



I have heard this supposed attack on assurance before but I do not see it. We have assurance only by faith. So if God grants us "covenantal faithfulness" by faith, then the assurance follows.
(When it comes to assurance, I become extremely fideistic. There is no epistemological justification other that simply believing the words of Christ. I have wrestled with doubt in this area since childhood.)

Rom 4:18 *In hope he believed against hope,* that he should become the father of many nations, as he had been told, "So shall your offspring be." 

Heb 3:6 but Christ is faithful over God's house as a son. And we are his house if indeed we hold fast our confidence and our boasting in our hope. 

Heb 6:11 And we desire each one of you to show the same earnestness to have the full assurance of hope until the end, 
Heb 6:12 so that you may not be sluggish, but imitators of those who through faith and patience inherit the promises. 
Heb 6:13 For when God made a promise to Abraham, since he had no one greater by whom to swear, he swore by himself, 
Heb 6:14 saying, "Surely I will bless you and multiply you." 



> I believe that Wright does not follow the errors of many of the FV crowd in holding out the difficult route of covenantal faithfulness. Instead, for Wright, once you are in, you are in. That is why Wright calls for table fellowship with Rome. For Wright, the only real sin that can affect one's standing before God is to fail to be as inclusive as he is (and hence fall into the error that he says the Pharisees had - relying on "covenant badges" ).



That is an interesting point that I will need to further investigate.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon

> It (Faith) is lived out in spite of understanding, and seems to involve more of the human will than many reformed people I speak with will admit.



This is impossible. You cannot have faith in something your do not understand, or believe soemthing contradictory. Understanding is essential to faith. Faith cannot be faith without understanding.


----------



## Saiph

> _Originally posted by C. Matthew McMahon_
> 
> 
> 
> It (Faith) is lived out in spite of understanding, and seems to involve more of the human will than many reformed people I speak with will admit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is impossible. You cannot have faith in something your do not understand, or believe soemthing contradictory. Understanding is essential to faith. Faith cannot be faith without understanding.
Click to expand...


Why is it then that the more we study and try to exhaust any given subject, the wider and deeper our confusion becomes ? Every answer leads to more questions in an infinite regress. At least it does for me.
In the end, I must have faith in the simple truths. God is triune. God became flesh. Christ died so that I could live by faith in His life, death, and resurrection. God's election is independent of our human understanding. He grants us knowledge, but it seems as though none of His children can even agree on the simplest doctrines (e.g. baptism).

We read the theologians throughout history and disagree on many points. I disagree with Pelagius for instance, but does that mean he is reprobate ? I honestly do not know if he was saved or not. Could God save him in spite of his understanding ? Could someone like Calvin or Edwards be reprobate ? I have no idea. But we should not be too eager to hand out anathemas on every theologian that disagree on how justification works. The New Testament writers seems to be much more zealous on protecting the diety of Christ than the doctrine of justification. An antichrist is one who denies Christ as God, not sola fide.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon

> _Originally posted by Saiph_
> Why is it then that the more we study and try to exhaust any given subject, the wider and deeper our confusion becomes ?



Because people are not careful to consider everything that should be considered.



> In the end, I must have faith in the simple truths. God is triune. God became flesh. Christ died so that I could live by faith in His life, death, and resurrection.



It is contending for the truth of those very things that we are discussing. Justification is imposed upon God's declaritve acts, Christ's works, His covenant promises, election, etc.



> We read the theologians throughout history and disagree on many points. I disagree with Pelagius for instance, but does that mean he is reprobate ?



Simply because anyone disagrees with another does not make a person reprobate. What makes a person reprobate is God's decree. That is different, though, than a heretic. A decree is not something we have privy information to. But in accordance to what we know to be true based on Scripture, someone could certainly demonstrate themselves as not only heretics, but reprobate. 

What makes them a heretic (something Paul certainly believed that we could know (cf. Titus 3:10)) is theological heresy. 



> I honestly do not know if he was saved or not. Could God save him in spite of his understanding ?



Can God save a heretic? Certainly. But he would have to repent of his heresy and God's power would help him do that.



> Could someone like Calvin or Edwards be reprobate ?



Only if they rejected the Gospel or the cardinal truths of the Scriptures.



> I have no idea.



This is a very sad place to be in then, Mark. It means you cannot be sure about your salvation, much less anyone else's fruit. God is much more explicit than that. We can "know" we have eternal life, and we can "know" a tree by its fruit. But we first have to "know" what the Scriptures say about such things.



> But we should not be too eager to hand out anathemas on every theologian that disagree on how justification works. The New Testament writers seems to be much more zealous on protecting the diety of Christ than the doctrine of justification. An antichrist is one who denies Christ as God, not sola fide.



We should be very eager, though, to hold onto the truth. The Scripture is overrun with our need to 1) understand the truth, 2) embrace the truth, and 3) contend for the truth.

John 8:32 "And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free."

Romans 2:2 But we know that the judgment of God is according to truth against those who practice such things.

1 Timothy 3:15 I write so that you may know how you ought to conduct yourself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth. 

2 Timothy 2:25 if God perhaps will grant them repentance, so that they may know the truth,

1 John 2:21 I have not written to you because you do not know the truth, but because you know it, and that no lie is of the truth.

1 John 3:18-19 My little children, let us not love in word or in tongue, but in deed and in truth. 19 And by this we know that we are of the truth, and shall assure our hearts before Him. 

1 John 4:6 We are of God. He who knows God hears us; he who is not of God does not hear us. By this we know the spirit of truth and the spirit of error.

Jude 1:3 Beloved, while I was very diligent to write to you concerning our common salvation, *I found it necessary to write to you exhorting you to contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints.*


----------



## Saiph

> This is a very sad place to be in then, Mark. It means you cannot be sure about your salvation, much less anyone else's fruit. God is much more explicit than that. We can "know" we have eternal life, and we can "know" a tree by its fruit. But we first have to "know" what the Scriptures say about such things.



When the scripture says we can "know" them by their fruit it is making a generic statement regarding outward appearances. In other words, treat them as the saints if their fruit matches the tree. However, there are wolves in sheeps clothing. So we trust God and do not presume to uproot tares lest we kill some wheat too. And we are also called to pray and have hope for those not bearing fruit. There is no absolute epistemological justification for such knowledge. Even our judgment of others is by faith because we cannot discern their motives. 

And yes, I do not possess any assurance. I have tried for years to figure out how to experience it or "know" it. In the end, I believe I am saved. I have no epistemological or existential proof for that though. The scripture states that we are kept in Christ. I believe that. But I do not feel the Holy Spirit or hear Him telling me anything. I envy my charismatic friends sometimes.

The point I am trying to make is that Pelagius could be saved in spite of his pelagianism. Just as I believe I am saved in spite of my Markisms. Every day God reveals new things to me that revise my theology. And, when looking back, I held to some errors for many years (Dispensationalism, Arminianism, Annihilation, Baptismal Regeneration, and a few others). Was He not with me during those years ? ? I may die tomorrow with an incomplete and/or incorrect theology. But my faith in Christ as Lord and redeemer is my only hope. God forbid that we should be saved by our theology.



> Jesus is the truth (Jn. 14:6). The Word of God is the truth (Jn. 17:17). We can know the truth, and the truth sets us free (Jn. 8:32). But we cannot know the Truth; we can know the truth but not the Truth (in Merold Westphal´s useful distinction). God´s thoughts are higher than ours no less than His ways are not our ways (Is. 55:9). God knows comprehensively from all "œperspectives." Yet even to speak in such a way dramatically underestimates to the point of sacrilege the nature of divine knowledge.
> 
> Man is not God, and man´s knowledge is not God´s. Man´s knowledge "” including the knowledge conveyed in these lines "” may be truthful in a creaturely sense, but it is always perspectival, incomplete, tentative and subject to error. This is why all human constructions "” even theological constructions that appear in creeds and confessions "” are subject to revision in light of the Holy Spirit speaking infallibly in Sacred Scripture. Some individuals do not grasp this simple fact, however, and vest their own (or somebody else´s) deep theological reflections with the Truth as it exists in the mind of God. They do not grasp that all seeing is seeing as, and that the eyes of revered predecessors saw only "” could see only "” perspectivally and tentatively.
> 
> P. Andrew Sandlin



[Edited on 12-27-2005 by Saiph]


----------



## Saiph

Cornelius Van Til on the Limitations of Human Knowledge 



> "Man´s system of truth, even when formulated in direct and self-conscious subordination to the revelation of the system of truth contained in Scripture, is "¦ not a deductive system. God has in himself absolute truth. God is truth. We need not call it a system of truth because there is, in his case, no gathering of facts into coherent relationships with one another. Secondly, God reveals to man in Scripture a system of truth. But this system is not an exhaustive replica of the truth as it is in God himself. It is a system that is adapted to human understanding. Third, the church´s restatement of this revealed system of truth is *a reworking of the system of truth in the Scripture.* It cannot therefore lay claim to be of the same authority as the system of the Bible. But the church must, of necessity, set forth a system of truth in the form of Confessions. *It must do so in order to better understand the truth of Scripture and in order to oppose error.*
> 
> ""¦ To be faithful to the system of truth as found in Scripture one must not take one doctrine and deduce from it by means of syllogistic procedure what he thinks follows from it. One must rather gather together all the facts and all the teachings of Scripture and organize them as best he can, *always mindful of the fact that such ordering is the ordering of the revelation of God, who is never fully comprehensible to man."*
> 
> A Christian Theory of Knowledge, p. 38 [1969]




I find a great sense of balance in this quote.


----------



## Ex Nihilo

> _Originally posted by C. Matthew McMahon_
> 
> This is impossible. You cannot have faith in something your do not understand, or believe soemthing contradictory. Understanding is essential to faith. Faith cannot be faith without understanding.



What degree of understanding is necessary? Can a child have this kind of understanding? What about a mentally retarded person? 

Is _complete_ understanding necessary? And if this complete understanding comes about by our studies, is it a work that we have produced? Or is the understanding granted to us by God along with our faith? Are we always aware of this understanding, or can it, like the innate knowledge of God that all humans have, exist without our recognizing it?

And can I still have faith in the Trinity? Because, honestly, I don't fully understand it.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon

> _Originally posted by Saiph_
> 
> 
> 
> This is a very sad place to be in then, Mark. It means you cannot be sure about your salvation, much less anyone else's fruit. God is much more explicit than that. We can "know" we have eternal life, and we can "know" a tree by its fruit. But we first have to "know" what the Scriptures say about such things.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When the scripture says we can "know" them by their fruit it is making a generic statement regarding outward appearances. In other words, treat them as the saints if their fruit matches the tree. However, there are wolves in sheeps clothing. So we trust God and do not presume to uproot tares lest we kill some wheat too. And we are also called to pray and have hope for those not bearing fruit. There is no absolute epistemological justification for such knowledge. Even our judgment of others is by faith because we cannot discern their motives.
> 
> And yes, I do not possess any assurance. I have tried for years to figure out how to experience it or "know" it. In the end, I believe I am saved. I have no epistemological or existential proof for that though. The scripture states that we are kept in Christ. I believe that. But I do not feel the Holy Spirit or hear Him telling me anything. I envy my charismatic friends sometimes.
> 
> The point I am trying to make is that Pelagius could be saved in spite of his pelagianism. Just as I believe I am saved in spite of my Markisms. Every day God reveals new things to me that revise my theology. And, when looking back, I held to some errors for many years (Dispensationalism, Arminianism, Annihilation, Baptismal Regeneration, and a few others). Was He not with me during those years ? ? I may die tomorrow with an incomplete and/or incorrect theology. But my faith in Christ as Lord and redeemer is my only hope. God forbid that we should be saved by our theology.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jesus is the truth (Jn. 14:6). The Word of God is the truth (Jn. 17:17). We can know the truth, and the truth sets us free (Jn. 8:32). But we cannot know the Truth; we can know the truth but not the Truth (in Merold Westphal´s useful distinction). God´s thoughts are higher than ours no less than His ways are not our ways (Is. 55:9). God knows comprehensively from all "œperspectives." Yet even to speak in such a way dramatically underestimates to the point of sacrilege the nature of divine knowledge.
> 
> Man is not God, and man´s knowledge is not God´s. Man´s knowledge "” including the knowledge conveyed in these lines "” may be truthful in a creaturely sense, but it is always perspectival, incomplete, tentative and subject to error. This is why all human constructions "” even theological constructions that appear in creeds and confessions "” are subject to revision in light of the Holy Spirit speaking infallibly in Sacred Scripture. Some individuals do not grasp this simple fact, however, and vest their own (or somebody else´s) deep theological reflections with the Truth as it exists in the mind of God. They do not grasp that all seeing is seeing as, and that the eyes of revered predecessors saw only "” could see only "” perspectivally and tentatively.
> 
> P. Andrew Sandlin
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> [Edited on 12-27-2005 by Saiph]
Click to expand...


Mark, I trust Sandlin as far as I can thorw him. But, not to go too far off the subject, I would heartily reccomend Hebrews 11 coupled with Beeke's book, "The Quest for Full Assurance." That may be of great help.

I think though, we should keep to the track of this thread which is suppose to be the theological view of NT Wright.

So far, no one had shown me that he is orthodox with any quotes based on what I've posted. It seems to be the majority opinion here that Wright is WRONG.

Can anyone pull up some "in context of his writings" quotes that vindicate him and recant anything that he has written in those other quotes? Jospeh's attempt at that in the beginning of this thread (simply quoting Wright) does not do him conprehensive justice, nor do they speak to anything I raised. That is due to a lack of reading Wright "somewhat" comprehensively.

Anything more to add?

I would like to add - I'd like to see people quoting, as Scott said, Edwards, Augustine, Turretin, Calvin, Luther, et. al. as much as they seem to have connection quoting people like Lusk, Wilson, Wright, Dunn, Sandlin, Horne, etc. Historical Theology is an important aspect of how all this pans out. That is why Wright, Lusk, etc., continually get historical theology wrong. 1) They don't "care" about it (which is why they misquote historical theologians continually, or are ignornt of them) and 2) they are interpreting the Bible "as story" instead of exegetically.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon

> What degree of understanding is necessary?



Use Scripture to answer that.



> Can a child have this kind of understanding? What about a mentally retarded person?



Are you asking if a child can be saved? Or a mentallyu reatrded person? Certainly, in both cases. Regeneration + Seed Faith is not the same as NT WRight espousing heresy. Don't confuse the two. One is provision for the child/retarded person, the other is flauting wickedness knowingly and/or ignorantly.



> Is _complete_ understanding necessary?



Yes, we have to believe the Gospel.



> And if this complete understanding comes about by our studies, is it a work that we have produced?



Regernation ("Savedness") yeilds faith, which yields the acceptance of God's Word, not the rejection of it. 



> Or is the understanding granted to us by God along with our faith?



God gives us a new heart, a new disposition, which gives us the ability to think rightly, powered by the Spirit. He does not, obviously, innately set everything that He wants us to know immediately in our mind. The Spirit works that into the regenerate mediately by the Word of God. This is different than the properties of regeneration or faith which are implanted in a child or retarded person.



> Are we always aware of this understanding, or can it, like the innate knowledge of God that all humans have, exist without our recognizing it?



We would not have threads like this one if we were all aware of it.
You cannot believe propositional truth without believing it. You cannot have faith on propositional truth, without believing it. You can be regenerated before you gain all the propositional truth to exercise faith.



> And can I still have faith in the Trinity? Because, honestly, I don't fully understand it.



You understand the propositional truth int he dictums of the doctrine of the Trinity. The Trinity is not contra-logic, or illogical. It is mysterious. But that doe snot overthrow faith since you BELIEVE the propositions of the Bible concerning the Trinity. What is that?

"In the unity of the Godhead there be three persons, of one substance, power, and eternity: God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost: the Father is of none, neither begotten, nor proceeding; the Son is eternally begotten of the Father; the Holy Ghost eternally proceeding from the Father and the Son."

When we define the Trinity this way it is 1) not illogical, 2) what the Bible teaches, and 3) propositions that spur faith in the regenerate.

I don't know how Jesus walked on water, but I believe He did. But, then, _how do I know He walked on water?_  Answer that one and you have your answer.


----------



## Saiph

Matt said:


> . . . they are interpreting the Bible "as story" instead of exegetically.



In other words, they interpret the Bible the way Jesus did.


Hosea 12:10 
I spoke to the prophets; it was I who multiplied visions, and through the prophets gave parables. 

Mat 13:13 This is why I speak to them in parables, because seeing they do not see, and hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand. 

Mat 13:35 This was to fulfill what was spoken by the prophet: "I will open my mouth in parables; I will utter what has been hidden since the foundation of the world." 

The entire history of redemption is a parable. History itself is God's fiction, because He is the author, telling His story.

Psalm 78 is a theological parable, a psalm, and a narrative in one.




Psa 78:1 A Maskil of Asaph. Give ear, O my people, to my teaching; incline your ears to the words of my mouth! 
Psa 78:2 * I will open my mouth in a parable; I will utter dark sayings from of old, 
Psa 78:3 things that we have heard and known, that our fathers have told us. *
Psa 78:4 We will not hide them from their children, but tell to the coming generation the glorious deeds of the LORD, and his might, and the wonders that he has done. 
Psa 78:5 He established a testimony in Jacob and appointed a law in Israel, which he commanded our fathers to teach to their children, 
Psa 78:6 that the next generation might know them, the children yet unborn, and arise and tell them to their children, 
Psa 78:7 so that they should set their hope in God and not forget the works of God, but keep his commandments; 
Psa 78:8 and that they should not be like their fathers, a stubborn and rebellious generation, a generation whose heart was not steadfast, whose spirit was not faithful to God. 
Psa 78:9 The Ephraimites, armed with the bow, turned back on the day of battle. 
Psa 78:10 They did not keep God's covenant, but refused to walk according to his law. 
Psa 78:11 They forgot his works and the wonders that he had shown them. 
Psa 78:12 In the sight of their fathers he performed wonders in the land of Egypt, in the fields of Zoan. 
Psa 78:13 He divided the sea and let them pass through it, and made the waters stand like a heap. 
Psa 78:14 In the daytime he led them with a cloud, and all the night with a fiery light. 
Psa 78:15 He split rocks in the wilderness and gave them drink abundantly as from the deep. 
Psa 78:16 He made streams come out of the rock and caused waters to flow down like rivers. 
Psa 78:17 Yet they sinned still more against him, rebelling against the Most High in the desert. 
Psa 78:18 They tested God in their heart by demanding the food they craved. 
Psa 78:19 They spoke against God, saying, "Can God spread a table in the wilderness? 
Psa 78:20 He struck the rock so that water gushed out and streams overflowed. Can he also give bread or provide meat for his people?" 
Psa 78:21 Therefore, when the LORD heard, he was full of wrath; a fire was kindled against Jacob; his anger rose against Israel, 
Psa 78:22 because they did not believe in God and did not trust his saving power. 
Psa 78:23 Yet he commanded the skies above and opened the doors of heaven, 
Psa 78:24 and he rained down on them manna to eat and gave them the grain of heaven. 
Psa 78:25 Man ate of the bread of the angels; he sent them food in abundance. 
Psa 78:26 He caused the east wind to blow in the heavens, and by his power he led out the south wind; 
Psa 78:27 he rained meat on them like dust, winged birds like the sand of the seas; 
Psa 78:28 he let them fall in the midst of their camp, all around their dwellings. 
Psa 78:29 And they ate and were well filled, for he gave them what they craved. 
Psa 78:30 But before they had satisfied their craving, while the food was still in their mouths, 
Psa 78:31 the anger of God rose against them, and he killed the strongest of them and laid low the young men of Israel. 
Psa 78:32 In spite of all this, they still sinned; despite his wonders, they did not believe. 
Psa 78:33 So he made their days vanish like a breath, and their years in terror. 
Psa 78:34 When he killed them, they sought him; they repented and sought God earnestly. 
Psa 78:35 They remembered that God was their rock, the Most High God their redeemer. 
Psa 78:36 But they flattered him with their mouths; they lied to him with their tongues. 
Psa 78:37 Their heart was not steadfast toward him; they were not faithful to his covenant. 
Psa 78:38 Yet he, being compassionate, atoned for their iniquity and did not destroy them; he restrained his anger often and did not stir up all his wrath. 
Psa 78:39 He remembered that they were but flesh, a wind that passes and comes not again. 
Psa 78:40 How often they rebelled against him in the wilderness and grieved him in the desert! 
Psa 78:41 They tested God again and again and provoked the Holy One of Israel. 
Psa 78:42 They did not remember his power or the day when he redeemed them from the foe, 
Psa 78:43 when he performed his signs in Egypt and his marvels in the fields of Zoan. 
Psa 78:44 He turned their rivers to blood, so that they could not drink of their streams. 
Psa 78:45 He sent among them swarms of flies, which devoured them, and frogs, which destroyed them. 
Psa 78:46 He gave their crops to the destroying locust and the fruit of their labor to the locust. 
Psa 78:47 He destroyed their vines with hail and their sycamores with frost. 
Psa 78:48 He gave over their cattle to the hail and their flocks to thunderbolts. 
Psa 78:49 He let loose on them his burning anger, wrath, indignation, and distress, a company of destroying angels. 
Psa 78:50 He made a path for his anger; he did not spare them from death, but gave their lives over to the plague. 
Psa 78:51 He struck down every firstborn in Egypt, the firstfruits of their strength in the tents of Ham. 
Psa 78:52 Then he led out his people like sheep and guided them in the wilderness like a flock. 
Psa 78:53 He led them in safety, so that they were not afraid, but the sea overwhelmed their enemies. 
Psa 78:54 And he brought them to his holy land, to the mountain which his right hand had won. 
Psa 78:55 He drove out nations before them; he apportioned them for a possession and settled the tribes of Israel in their tents. 
Psa 78:56 Yet they tested and rebelled against the Most High God and did not keep his testimonies, 
Psa 78:57 but turned away and acted treacherously like their fathers; they twisted like a deceitful bow. 
Psa 78:58 For they provoked him to anger with their high places; they moved him to jealousy with their idols. 
Psa 78:59 When God heard, he was full of wrath, and he utterly rejected Israel. 
Psa 78:60 He forsook his dwelling at Shiloh, the tent where he dwelt among mankind, 
Psa 78:61 and delivered his power to captivity, his glory to the hand of the foe. 
Psa 78:62 He gave his people over to the sword and vented his wrath on his heritage. 
Psa 78:63 Fire devoured their young men, and their young women had no marriage song. 
Psa 78:64 Their priests fell by the sword, and their widows made no lamentation. 
Psa 78:65 Then the Lord awoke as from sleep, like a strong man shouting because of wine. 
Psa 78:66 And he put his adversaries to rout; he put them to everlasting shame. 
Psa 78:67 He rejected the tent of Joseph; he did not choose the tribe of Ephraim, 
Psa 78:68 but he chose the tribe of Judah, Mount Zion, which he loves. 
Psa 78:69 He built his sanctuary like the high heavens, like the earth, which he has founded forever. 
Psa 78:70 He chose David his servant and took him from the sheepfolds; 
Psa 78:71 from following the nursing ewes he brought him to shepherd Jacob his people, Israel his inheritance. 
Psa 78:72 With upright heart he shepherded them and guided them with his skillful hand.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

When you look at hemlock growing out of the ground, it looks just like a carrot top. I'm not sure, but I suspect that their seeds look remarkably similar too.

The analogy I'm making is that one is poison and the other edible, but they have the same look to them, growing out. But no matter what, the seed of the carrot will only produce a carrot, and the seed of the hemlock only hemlock.

Jesus also used an herbal analogy: By their fruits you will know them. Neither the thief on the cross, nor a dead infant, nor the gentleman I buried three weeks ago had fruits of faith. In some cases they only had a profession. In the case of the infant, not even that, just a promise from God.

Some Christians are spared theological controversy. Their simple faith is a sufficient faith, and they stay within their bounds. Others like to gather a bunch of knowledge, but aren't particularly concerned how this stuff fits together, indeed some of it is incompatible, but they have the core. God gave teachers to his church to help people to keep certain things and throw others away. It is a curse to lose good teachers.

Then there are those who work at putting together a coherent body of truth. They are teachers, and teach the future teachers. They follow out lines of thought until they have found the connections. They keep following the tree of knowledge back down to the roots. They keep this and reject that, all the while mapping out their quest--until they find something essential, until they have either affirmed _or denied_ a fundamental tenet of doctrine.

God alone knows _how_ damnable any specific error is. But the more committed someone is, the more he is in love with his idolatrous errors, and seeks to get others to admit them as truth--and so deny more and more of the real truth, why, isn't that just bad fruit?

Christians, even very smart teachers back in the day, may not have defined themselves in our categories. Our theological tree has grown immensely, but the stock is still the same. They did not have such a requirement to hold to the "doctrine of justification" as articulated in our later Creeds and Confessions. They simply weren't fighting about those issues. They were fighting for the Deity of Christ and the Humanity of Christ! Those were the life and death issues of that day. And those who denied the truth were endangering their souls.

I love it, however, when we read some of those DTK quotes from the early Fathers, that in handling certain issues or texts they express themselves in simple eloquence concerning truths that later Christians *died* to safeguard. The later ones often held to more developed, more clearly defined ideas, but the connection to the faith of their fathers is also unmistakable.

So, whether the most modern fellow is denying the Trinity, or the hypostatic union, or justification by faith, we have to be able to have the confidence to say--those are corrupting notions that attack the true nature of God, of the Savior, of salvation. If these are lost, what becomes of the faith? Is it OK to have teachers that teach people as if they lived in a cocoon? As if all they need is that milk of the Word? As if they aren't going to be exposed to the most sophisticated deceptions that are out there? What is a "wind and wave" of doctrine, if not a desperate threat? What does a "faith shipwreck" look like?


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Thanks Pastor King....
Randy


----------



## BrianBowman

Rev. Bruce - that was simple and sublime!


----------



## pduggan

> _Originally posted by C. Matthew McMahon_He says, "Justification, at the last, will be on the basis of performance, not possession." (Wright, Romans, 440).
> 
> Present justification for Wright is not justification is ANY Reformed sense, or biblical exegetical sense for that matter. It is simply the nonsensical idea of "covenant faithfulness". In the future, God will look at believers covenantal faithfulness and then determine, in His final judgment of all things "to be considered" if it is in line with a complete "covenantal obedience." But remember, this has nothing to do with King Jesus. This is Romanism repackaged.


Wright says nothing about looking at the belivers 'covenant faithfulness" at the end as far as I can see. He speaks of present justification as that which provides assurance.


> Originaly from this blog entry by me
> 
> I do not see Wright arguing that the fact that the community that we enter in by God's effectual call is one that will indeed receive resurrection and eternal life at the end, after they have "gathered fruit for eternal life" (John 4:26), that because they receive it at the end, 'according to works' (Romans 2:6) that they therefore are not in any way possessors of eternal life now.
> 
> Rather, Wright claims explicitly that those who have faith receive in the present the verdict that will be declared upon them and their works at the last day: that they are righteous, and there is no question that the 'golden chain' of salvation in Romans 8 will not apply to the one with true faith. In contrast to Dunn, who operates from within a Wesleyan Evangelical tradition, Wright says
> 
> 
> 
> (Romans) 5 to 8 is saying those whom he also justified, them he also glorified. And that is part of the point of justification by faith, it that then and there is given that assurance, even though that has to be tested to the limit and has to face the possibility that faith itself might prove false, but I'm thinking of I Corinthians 3 where albeit he's talking about Christian workers rather than simply Christians per se, but where he speaks of those who build on the foundation with wood and hay and stubble, whose work will be burned up when they day appears, he says nevertheless that person will be saved
> 
> 
> 
> I also think that Rick Phillips obscuring something important about life by his need to refer to it as a 'possession,' which, while consonant with John's usage, seems to me really beside the point. The importance of 'life' as granted by God, and as Wright has outlined it speaking of Romans 8, is not to posses it like an object, but to put it to use in the service of God. It is a result of the Spirit (John 7:38) as much as a judicial declaration, and the two are inseparable.
> 
> Wright's claims about eternal life are quite far from saying it is something that only arrives at the end of the life lived by faith. On Romans 8:3-4, he says of the present reality of those that have faith in Messiah that
> 
> 
> 
> The life the Torah intended, indeed longed, to give to God's people is now truly given by the Spirit
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> and that the way the living of the Christian life then follows into the final resurrection verdict is that
> 
> 
> 
> that verdict will correspond to the present one, and will follow from (though not, in that sense, earned or merited by) the Spirit-led life of which Paul now speak
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> On Romans 10:5-11, Wright says
> 
> 
> 
> All who believe in the Messiah...are thereby 'fulfilling the law'; they are 'doing' it in the sense Deuteronomy 30 intended; and they thereby find "life," as 8:9-11 demonstrated, the life that Torah wanted to give but could not (7:10) the life that can now be spoken of more specifically as "salvation".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What Wright lines out here is almost exactly parallel to that which Phillips intimates about John 5:24.
> 
> A: Those who hear my word and believe him who sent me
> A' Those who believe in the Messiah
> 
> B: has eternal life
> B': have life
> 
> C: which the Jews thought they had by "searching scriptures" (John 5:39)
> C': which the Law wanted to give, but couldn't
> 
> D: but Moses actually pointed ahead to the one who would give the Spirit, having life 'in himself', and thus remove the dead sinful life right now (5:25)
> 
> D': and they will receive resurrection after a life of 'doing good' (5:29) but now we find that the life we life in the Spirit is the antithesis of the sinful life, and it will end in resurrection
> 
> In sum, Wright's (and Paul's) view is that eternal life is a present tense experience/possession of those who have faith in Messiah.
Click to expand...




> Wright throws out the death of Christ and justification as soteriological.


 Oh c'mon! The death of Christ is not soteriological for Wright? Its how God has dealt with sin! Can you offer a quote for this extraordinary claim?


----------



## Romans922

> _Originally posted by pduggan_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by C. Matthew McMahon_He says, "Justification, at the last, will be on the basis of performance, not possession." (Wright, Romans, 440).
> 
> Present justification for Wright is not justification is ANY Reformed sense, or biblical exegetical sense for that matter. It is simply the nonsensical idea of "covenant faithfulness". In the future, God will look at believers covenantal faithfulness and then determine, in His final judgment of all things "to be considered" if it is in line with a complete "covenantal obedience." But remember, this has nothing to do with King Jesus. This is Romanism repackaged.
> 
> 
> 
> Wright says nothing about looking at the belivers 'covenant faithfulness" at the end as far as I can see. He speaks of present justification as that which provides assurance.
Click to expand...


This is from the NPP by NT Wright (http://www.ntwrightpage.com/Wright_New_Perspectives.htm)


> 1. The Gospel
> 
> I begin where Romans begins "“ with the gospel. My proposal is this. When Paul refers to "˜the gospel´, he is not referring to a system of salvation, though of course the gospel implies and contains this, nor even to the good news that there now is a way of salvation open to all, but rather to the proclamation that the crucified Jesus of Nazareth has been raised from the dead and thereby demonstrated to be both Israel´s Messiah and the world´s true Lord. "˜The gospel´ is not "˜you can be saved, and here´s how´; the gospel, for Paul, is "˜Jesus Christ is Lord´.
> 
> This announcement draws together two things, in derivation and confrontation. First, Paul is clearly echoing the language of Isaiah: the message announced by the herald in Isaiah 40 and 52 has at last arrived. Saying "˜Jesus is Messiah and Lord´ is thus a way of saying, among other things, "˜Israel´s history has come to its climax´; or "˜Isaiah´s prophecy has come true at last´. This is powerfully reinforced by Paul´s insistence, exactly as in Isaiah, that this heraldic message reveals God´s righteousness, that is, God´s covenant faithfulness, about which more anon. Second, since the word "˜gospel´ was in public use to designate the message that Caesar was the Lord of the whole world, Paul´s message could not escape being confrontative: Jesus, not Caesar, is Lord, and at his name, not that of the Emperor, every knee shall bow. This aspect lies at the heart of what I have called "˜the fresh perspective on Paul´, the discovery of a subversive political dimension not as an add-on to Paul´s theology but as part of the inner meaning of "˜gospel´, "˜righteousness´, and so on.
> 
> For Paul, the announcement or proclamation of Jesus as Lord was itself the "˜word of God´ which carried power. Putting together the various things he says about the preaching of the gospel, the word, and the work of the Spirit, we arrive at the following position: when Paul comes into a town and declares that Jesus is Lord, no doubt explaining who Jesus was, the fact and significance of his death and resurrection, and so on, then the Spirit is at work, mysteriously, in the hearts and minds of the listeners, so that, when some of them believe in Jesus, Paul knows that this is not because of his eloquence or clever argument but because the announcement of Jesus as Lord functions as (in later technical language) the means of grace, the vehicle of the Spirit. And, since the gospel is the heraldic proclamation of Jesus as Lord, it is not first and foremost a suggestion that one might like to enjoy a new religious experience. Nor is it even the take-it-or-leave-it offer of a way to salvation. It is a royal summons to submission, to obedience, to allegiance; and the form that this submission and obedient allegiance takes is of course faith. That is what Paul means by "˜the obedience of faith´. Faith itself, defined conveniently by Paul as belief that Jesus is Lord and that God raised him from the dead, is the work of the Spirit, accomplished through the proclamation. "˜No-one can say "œJesus is Lord" except by the Holy Spirit.´ But this already jumps ahead to my fourth point, and before we get there we must take in the second and third.


 




> Wright throws out the death of Christ and justification as soteriological.
> 
> 
> 
> Oh c'mon! The death of Christ is not soteriological for Wright? Its how God has dealt with sin! Can you offer a quote for this extraordinary claim?
Click to expand...


Wright's justification, righteousness, faith are all ecclesiological not soteriological. Read his commentary on Romans, and the second paragraph of this article written by Wright: (http://www.ntwrightpage.com/Wright_New_Perspectives.htm). 

Paul I think some people have asked you before but I didn't see your reply. Are you a proponent of NPP and/or FV?



[Edited on 1-4-2006 by Romans922]


----------



## pduggan

Ok. So what in the quote says that Wright makes the believer's 'covenant faithfulness' the basis for salvation during the last judgment?

I see Wright saying that the gospel calls the believer to present faith.


> It is a royal summons to submission, to obedience, to allegiance; and the *form that this submission* and obedient allegiance takes *is of course faith*. That is what Paul means by "˜the obedience of faith´. *Faith* itself, *defined* conveniently by Paul *as belief that Jesus is Lord and that God raised him from the dead*, is the work of the Spirit, accomplished through the proclamation.


There is nothing of 'faithfulness' in the Norman Shepherd sense. Mere faith is the thing that God ordains by the Spirit to respond to the gospel call. What on earth is wrong with that?

I also see no claim that Wright sees *the death of Christ* as non-soteriological. If anything, Wright puts too much soteriology into the mere death of Christ, putting the existential qualities of Justification with ecclesiology, as he is known to do. I'm challenging the accuracy of claiming that the death of Christ is non-soteriological for Wright. My interest is accuracy, not being a proponent of anything.

[Edited on 1-4-2006 by pduggan]

[Edited on 1-4-2006 by pduggan]


----------



## LadyFlynt

And yet you've dodged the last question...


----------



## pduggan

> _Originally posted by LadyFlynt_
> And yet you've dodged the last question...


Did I? Maybe I think labeling various unspecified generalities as 'NPP' or 'FV' aren't interesting or useful.

I am not an NPP or FV proponent, though I oppose bad critiques of them. 

I find some value in them, as have even Rick Phillips and Ligon Duncan, D. A. Carson, Bryan Chapell, Sinclair Ferguson, and others.

I'm a proponent of Gaffin. I am a proponent of Murray, except where his view of the Law tends towards theonomy.

I am a proponent of Van Til.

I hold to a Calvinistic view of the sacramental efficacy, and agree with Boice and the executive pastor of Tenth Presbyterian Church, Marion Clark, in the book, edited by Ligon Duncan, celebrating Boice's theology of worship, that the sacraments, as seals, assure us of salvation.


----------



## Scott Bushey

> _Originally posted by pduggan_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by LadyFlynt_
> And yet you've dodged the last question...
> 
> 
> 
> Did I? Maybe I think labeling various unspecified generalities as 'NPP' or 'FV' aren't interesting or useful.
> 
> I am not an NPP or FV proponent, though I oppose bad critiques of them.
> 
> I find some value in them, as have even Rick Phillips and Ligon Duncan, D. A. Carson, Bryan Chapell, Sinclair Ferguson, and others.
> 
> I'm a proponent of Gaffin. I am a proponent of Murray, except where his view of the Law tends towards theonomy.
> 
> I am a proponent of Van Til.
> 
> I hold to a Calvinistic view of the sacramental efficacy, and agree with Boice and the executive pastor of Tenth Presbyterian Church, Marion Clark, in the book, edited by Ligon Duncan, celebrating Boice's theology of worship, that the sacraments, as seals, assure us of salvation.
Click to expand...


Murray is not teaching heresy and redefining the Christian faith......Phillips hates FV, as does Duncan. You're becoming ambiguous Paul, much like the FV people. No one is able to tie them down. That which you hold to is orthodox. Singularly, Schlissel would as well be, or sound orthodox. Throw that altogether into a bowl and you have a heretical cake of sorts.


----------



## biblelighthouse

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> You're becoming ambiguous Paul, much like the FV people. No one is able to tie them down. That which you hold to is orthodox. Singularly, Schlissel would as well be, or sound orthodox.



How is Paul being "ambiguous"? 

If you are going to make such a charge, you ought to at least back it up.


It sounds to me like your problem with Paul is the same as your problem with various theologians you don't like. You don't understand them because you refuse to listen to them in the first place.

Paul is not ambiguous. He plainly stated above that he holds to the WCF, and he clearly said that he believes a person receives soteriological benefit from simply having faith/belief in the death of Christ.




[Edited on 1-4-2006 by biblelighthouse]


----------

