NT Wright on Justification

[Casey]

Just an FYI: I found out last week that IVP will be coming out with a new book by NT Wright on justification in May/June of 2009. I figured some here would be interested in it, since it's an entire volume devoted to this (controversial) topic. I don't know anything else about it at the moment.

 

[TimV]

IVP? Does a parachurch have it's own publishing house? If so, I suppose a sneaky worm like NT Wright would be..... Nah, let's just be ecumenical and sing Kum Bai Ya together instead of criticizing another professing believer. And maybe the NPP people are right, and we Reformed folk need to pull our heads out of the mud and evolve.

 

[Herald]

Tim,

Sending a shot over someone's bow are we?

 

[Herald]

Just an FYI: I found out last week that IVP will be coming out with a new book by NT Wright on justification in May/June of 2009. I figured some here would be interested in it, since it's an entire volume devoted to this (controversial) topic. I don't know anything else about it at the moment.

Casey, I doubt Wright has had a change of heart on the New Perspective. Any book he writes on justification is bound to be tainted with his dangerous and heretical view on the subject. Proceed with caution.

 

[TimV]

Tim,

Sending a shot over someone's bow are we

?

That was over my head. Could you please explain? My last PCA Pastor told me that I should study the NPP to proceed in my Christian walk, as he was "into the NPP" and after I studied it my conclusion was that it was just another dumb bunch of liberals trying to wear down the defences of orthodox Christians.

I have no less than an utter contempt for the NPP, and here in the OPC, and even in the PCA, I can/could hold that position and still be allowed to speak it freely. At least after a church trial, which I would win.

Sorry if I missed your meaning, but it was criptic.

 

[Casey]

Sorry, let me be more clear: I'm not endorsing the book. I'm just saying that, for sake of clarity, an entire volume of his on justification will be helpful for the purpose of critiquing his views.

 

[Herald]

Sorry, let me be more clear: I'm not endorsing the book. I'm just saying that, for sake of clarity, an entire volume of his on justification will be helpful for the purpose of critiquing his views.

Casey, I didn't think you were endorsing Wright's book. I have a personal axe to grind with Wright's New Perspective position. A former member of our church got sucked into Wright's theology. He adopted the NP and then questioned the inerrancy of scripture. From what I've heard he has now denied the faith.

 

[Herald]

Tim,

Sending a shot over someone's bow are we

?

That was over my head. Could you please explain? My last PCA Pastor told me that I should study the NPP to proceed in my Christian walk, as he was "into the NPP" and after I studied it my conclusion was that it was just another dumb bunch of liberals trying to wear down the defences of orthodox Christians.

I have no less than an utter contempt for the NPP, and here in the OPC, and even in the PCA, I can/could hold that position and still be allowed to speak it freely. At least after a church trial, which I would win.

Sorry if I missed your meaning, but it was criptic.

Tim, forget it. I thought you were taking a shot at someone. I didn't quite understand your first post in this thread.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

Sorry, let me be more clear: I'm not endorsing the book. I'm just saying that, for sake of clarity, an entire volume of his on justification will be helpful for the purpose of critiquing his views.

Casey, I didn't think you were endorsing Wright's book. I have a personal axe to grind with Wright's New Perspective position. A former member of our church got sucked into Wright's theology. He adopted the NP and then questioned the inerrancy of scripture. From what I've heard he has now denied the faith.

I also have a personal axe to grind. Wright's New Perspective is heresy. His distortions of scripture are terrible and a play on history and words. His view of the righteousness of God is very flawed in 2 Corinthians 5 and his view of Romans 4 is totally messed up. I also have a friend who fell for N.T. Wright's views and no longer holds to the doctrines of grace as we know them. His view of scripture has also went south.

 

[TimV]

I also have a personal axe to grind. Wright's New Perspective is heresy. His distortions of scripture are terrible and a play on history and words.

Yep. He's a snake.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

One more thought. Hasn't N.T. Wright written enough on the topic already? I mean how many books and articles does one need to write concerning Paul and Justification before we know what he is saying. That is, unless he has changed his view and just wants to muck up the waters even more.

 

[Christusregnat]

One more thought. Hasn't N.T. Wright written enough on the topic already? I mean how many books and articles does one need to write concerning Paul and Justification before we know what he is saying.

Money, money, money, mooooney, moooooneh...

 

[MW]

If an individual teaches error, it doesn't necessarily mean he has fallen prey to the worst vices of fallen human nature. Remember, the apostle Paul thought that he ought to do many things against the name of Jesus. People can be sincerely wrong.

 

[Pilgrim]

I wonder if the book is in some respect a response to Piper's recent book on Wright.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

One more thought. Hasn't N.T. Wright written enough on the topic already? I mean how many books and articles does one need to write concerning Paul and Justification before we know what he is saying.

Money, money, money, mooooney, moooooneh...

I am not so sure that money may be the motive. And I personally wouldn't think it is. I believe the motive would be justifiction of what one believed. If one writes enough and well enough many might be convinced he could possibly be correct. After all, he is a scholar.

 

[Christusregnat]

One more thought. Hasn't N.T. Wright written enough on the topic already? I mean how many books and articles does one need to write concerning Paul and Justification before we know what he is saying.

Money, money, money, mooooney, moooooneh...

I am not so sure that money may be the motive. And I personally wouldn't think it is. I believe the motive would be justifiction of what one believed. If one writes enough and well enough many might be convinced he could possibly be correct. After all, he is a scholar.

Yes, but he is also a socialist; which generally means that he wants money, money money money.

 

[Herald]

If an individual teaches error, it doesn't necessarily mean he has fallen prey to the worst vices of fallen human nature. Remember, the apostle Paul thought that he ought to do many things against the name of Jesus. People can be sincerely wrong.

Matthew, if a person is sincerely wrong about justification, to what degree can they be wrong and still be called a brother?

 

[satz]

If an individual teaches error, it doesn't necessarily mean he has fallen prey to the worst vices of fallen human nature. Remember, the apostle Paul thought that he ought to do many things against the name of Jesus. People can be sincerely wrong.

Matthew, if a person is sincerely wrong about justification, to what degree can they be wrong and still be called a brother?

He can correct me if I am wrong, but I had thought that Rev Winzer's point was that a man may be writing books filled with error because he sincerely believes he is teaching the truth. That does not legitimize his error, but it does not (necessarily) mean he is trying to fleece people of their money either.

 

[JohnOwen007]

One more thought. Hasn't N.T. Wright written enough on the topic already? [...]

No, not justification. That's precisely the problem in my mind. NTW hasn't given a full defense of all his ideas about justification. Most of his discussions about it have been ad hoc, whilst dealing with other things. There have been many critiques of NTW on justification to which he has never directly replied.

NTW's new book on justification is actually his reply to John Piper's book against NTW. So, I for one, will be interested to see what NTW actually says.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

One more thought. Hasn't N.T. Wright written enough on the topic already? [...]

No, not justification. That's precisely the problem in my mind. NTW hasn't given a full defense of all his ideas about justification. Most of his discussions about it have been ad hoc, whilst dealing with other things. There have been many critiques of NTW on justification to which he has never directly replied.

NTW's new book on justification is actually his reply to John Piper's book against NTW. So, I for one, will be interested to see what NTW actually says.

It'll certainly be good for him to definitively clarify his position.

 

[Marrow Man]

I wonder if the book is in some respect a response to Piper's recent book on Wright.

Yes, that would be my guess. I wonder if he will make it free at his website as does Piper.

 

[TimV]

But why not do the book wholly digital? He says we are cutting down the rain forests for the "needs of empire". So what does he think paper comes from?

 

[fredtgreco]

One more thought. Hasn't N.T. Wright written enough on the topic already? [...]

No, not justification. That's precisely the problem in my mind. NTW hasn't given a full defense of all his ideas about justification. Most of his discussions about it have been ad hoc, whilst dealing with other things. There have been many critiques of NTW on justification to which he has never directly replied.

NTW's new book on justification is actually his reply to John Piper's book against NTW. So, I for one, will be interested to see what NTW actually says.

It'll certainly be good for him to definitively clarify his position.

Yes, after a fashion, so to speak, it would be (perhaps) a good (although not quite so good as great) a thing (or matter, as the case may be) for Wright, as it were, to give (or rather "present," although one could take issue with the language of "presenting" as being Northwestern in origin, as opposed to Southeastern) his view (but not to be locked into a construct, or schemata - as it were) on justification.

I can't wait, given Wright's "hard hitting" and definitive stances on so many other issues.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

 

[TimV]

That was classic.

 

[ManleyBeasley]

Has anyone read Piper's book on Wright's view?

 

[greenbaggins]

I read it, and thought it was extremely helpful. Piper was very pastoral and humble in his dealing with Wright, and I also think it was a very fair book. Despite the fact of his being fair, Piper was still devastating in his critique of Wright.

 

[py3ak]

If an individual teaches error, it doesn't necessarily mean he has fallen prey to the worst vices of fallen human nature. Remember, the apostle Paul thought that he ought to do many things against the name of Jesus. People can be sincerely wrong.

[Moderator]Mr. Winzer makes a Biblical point. Let there be no more negative speculation as to Wright's motivations. Be as harsh as you please against the doctrine (assuming you have an acquaintance with it); but there is no need to vilify.[/Moderator]