Featured Wright is Wrong on Justification

I don't think Paul evdn had a "view" of justification

It was simply an ordinary vocabulary word he used. Can I ask you....

What's your view of "driving"
What's your view of "ceiling"
What's your view of "closing"

Can you honestly say you have a "view" on common vocabulary words?

Justified was a common word that had a NON theological definition - but was used in a theological treatise. The definition didn't change, the application was broadened

 

Before I respond to you OP, I want to address something you said in a previous thread. But let me begin by scolding you for not providing citation for quotation. Good dialogue cannot happen without this. I can't expect you to follow my arguments that I provide unless I provide the means for you to follow. Likewise in reverse.

So here goes:

My response:

So I checked, and as I suspected, you misrepresented and misunderstand Wright's statement. You even misquoted him!!! This kind of false representation is in the same vein as Gail Riplinger's attempts to smear in her terrible books. I would encourage you to be more judicious in your quoting and understanding of Wright.

Now here is the entire quote in context from "Justification: The Biblical Basis and its Relevance for Contemporary Evangelicalism" (accessed:http://ntwrightpage.com/Wright_Justification_Biblical_Basis.pdf)

As I thought, this isn't about Romans 4, but it began with Romans 2 and mainly 3.

Second, he clearly admits "justification by faith". However, his understanding of justification as it pertains to those in the Judaizer camp is that Jews access the promises of Abraham through their physical decent. Thus they boast in their ethnic heritage. Therefore, the works they perform are not a means of attaining their status as the people of God but of demonstrating their status. This is not what Wright believes but explaining what many Jews of Paul's day believed!

Third, with that context in mind, Wright's statement (quoted correctly with scare quotes and a colon), the "works" performed by the Jews in order to demonstrate their ethnic status in Abraham and thus boast is an attempt to confine grace to Jews only and not Gentiles. Thus this paragraph began with removing ethnic partiality with God providing salvation to all mankind.

Lastly, the only thing you would probably object to is that Wright claims Paul is not arguing against legalism in Romans. But that hardly makes him a heretic.

 

First, I am not familiar with all of Wright's writing. What you post in the OP would be correct (imo) in the view that Justification does have a farther reach than merely declaring one acquitted, not merely innocent, but that validating the rightness of the person.

For example: In the U.S. judicial system one may be acquitted of a crime but still be liable for damages under the civil court system. The view of Paul is that not only is the sin (crime) acquitted, but the iniquity (liability) is also removed.

Both you and the quote given by you of Wright would seem to be stating similar thought lines, just different terminologies.

In agreement to your view, regard how Romans 4 cannot be separated from Romans 5 because of the word "THEREFORE."

Here is the transition of Romans 4 into Romans 5:

He who was delivered over because of our transgressions, and was raised because of our justification.
Therefore, having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom also we have obtained our introduction by faith into this grace in which we stand; and we exult in hope of the glory of God.​

The very raising of Christ from the tomb was because OUR justification had taken place.

Paul didn't just pick a common word with some nebulous meaning, but one in which believers are "declared righteous."

Christ was raised because of our being "declared righteous," and we were not merely "acquitted" but because the iniquity was expunged (as you pointed out) we have that introducing to God and the hope of His glory. Which is why one cannot separate Romans 4 from the explanation of Romans 5.

These are legal terms, not generally applied outside of a judicial system. And in the context of use, Paul is also showing that the acquittal process extended beyond what our legal system thinking allows, into a complete expunging of not only the record but a proof of being righteous delivered and future deliverance. Paul was VERY familiar being schooled and a recognized scholar of the Jews prior to his conversion.

Very good thread, Biblicist.

 

But faith is not the fulfilment of the law, is it? Christ Himself is the fulfilment of the law (Matthew 5:17; Galatians 3:13) and Christians are justified by their union with Him through faith.

 

2 things: Wright claims to only give a "bare definition." And his definition is simply a lexical definition not meant to be what you classify as a "Biblical definition." Point in fact, Paul assumes the lexical definition. Rom. 4:5–8 isn't actually a definition of justification either. So you are incorrect there as well. It would be wrong to subsume all the terms of salvation (like justification and forgiveness). But they are separate ideas that overlap and relate but distinct nonetheless.

Second, do you intentionally misspell his name as W. T. Right??? Later you have W. T. Wright. But it is N. T. Wright. Either you do not "understand" or you are "intentionally perverting" his name. You accused him of something similar.

First, I'm not sure you understand what Wright mean by positive. He said that the "absence of guilt" is not strong enough for the positive argument. Instead of it meaning "not guilty" it instead means "innocent" or "in the right". And on a lexical level, forgiveness and justification deal with 2 separate issues. Justification is legal and pertains to justice. Forgiveness relates to mercy. The question is, how can God justly declare sinners "in the right" as well as forgive sin? It pertains to Christ, of course.

You might find it interesting that many now not in the NPP camp do not connect justification with imputation but rather union with Christ. IOW, we are not declared "in the right" because Jesus' rightness or righteousness was imputed to us. Rather, we are declared right because our faith joins us or places us "in Christ". And Jesus was declared "in the right" at his resurrection. Therefore, what is true of the Messiah is true of the Messiah's people. If you are willing to read articles, I can list some good sources that make this case.

 

This is not synergism, unless you mean synergism in the sense of sanctification. Synergism in the sense that after initial justification, there will be good works to follow. Do you disagree with that?

And Calvin (I think he qualifies as a reformer) said, "It is not our doctrine that the faith which justifies is alone; we maintain that it is invariably accompanied by good works; only we contend that faith alone is sufficient for justification.” (Calvin's commentary on Gal. 5:6). Speaking of Gal. 5, wouldn't this be Paul's way of linking good works with being justified by grace through faith? V. 4 mentions justification and v. 6 mentions the idea of justification by faith resulting in love.

 

The sacraments aside, since you've not provided a quotation to prove that (that I have seen).

What do you do with Romans 2 and the judgment of God based good works? Since justification IS a legal term and Romans 2 IS a courtroom setting (giving us the context for how Paul defines justification), then your ideas above pose a problem.

"We know that the judgment of God rightly falls on those who practice such things. Do you suppose, O man—you who judge those who practice such things and yet do them yourself—that you will escape the judgment of God? Or do you presume on the riches of his kindness and forbearance and patience, not knowing that God's kindness is meant to lead you to repentance? But because of your hard and impenitent heart you are storing up wrath for yourself on the day of wrath when God's righteous judgment will be revealed. He will render to each one according to his works: to those who by patience in welldoing seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life; but for those who are selfseeking and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, there will be wrath and fury. There will be tribulation and distress for every human being who does evil, the Jew first and also the Greek, but glory and honor and peace for everyone who does good, the Jew first and also the Greek. For God shows no partiality."

 

I'm not a fan on Wright's view of justification, but the OP is misleading as to what his view actually is and that isn't helpful. Wright has, admittedly, a sacramental view of salvation that is based on his view of justification which highly aligns with a more Catholic view but is not synergistic.

As Baptists we naturally disagree with Wright. We are not sacramentalists and don't hold to the same view of justification as Wright. I do believe Paul has a specific view of salvation in the NT and that it begins with justification by grace through faith.

GreekTim, as usual, is doing an able job of properly defining Wright's view.

 

I don't see a problem with Wright's comments even as presented in the OP. Justification is more then mere forgiveness, and there is no salvation without it.