N.T. Wright and the Reformed view of salvation

Status
Not open for further replies.

biblelighthouse

Puritan Board Junior
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]
 
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
 
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.
 
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
 
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.
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
 
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.
 
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.
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
 
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]
 
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]
 
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! :tombstone:
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.

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.
 
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]
 
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.
 
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]
 
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.
 
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]
 
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'.

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.

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.
 
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?
 
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.
 
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?
 
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.
 
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!)
 
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.
 
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!
 
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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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.
 
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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top