Featured Wright is Wrong on Justification

I am not aware that I had misquoted him. At first, I didn't think I could cut and paste from his article, and so I went back and forth taking short bites at a time. If I misquoted him it was a sincere mistake. Later, I saw that I could cut and paste.

It is precisely to do with Romans 3:21 and 3:29:

If this is not so, the question of 3:29 ('Is God the God of the Jews only?') is a total non sequitur. 'Works' are done not to earn privilege but to demonstrate it: they are the attempt to confine grace to one race. But the Gospel presents Israel with the knowledge that all alike have sinned, 47 and with the fact of a crucified Messiah, who spells death to nationalistic pride. The Gospel is revealed 'apart from the [Jewish] law' (3:21), since only so could it benefit both Gentiles (who do not possess the law) and Jews (who stand convicted by it).http://ntwrightpage.com/Wright_Justification_Biblical_Basis.pdf "Romans"

Wright is dealing with "works" precisely where Paul introduces the contrast between "works" and "faith" with regard to justification which is carried over to Romans 4. I think you are nit picking instead of rightly understanding Wright as his statement here has full intention for "works" in Romans 4 as it does in Romans 3:29 as Wright nowhere in his writings that I am aware argues that his own understanding of "works" differs in Romans 3:24-31 than in Romans 4. So I don't believe I am taking him out of context at all as his definition in Romans 3:29 is his definition in Romans 4 unless you can supply a quotation from Wright where he argues "works" in Romans 3 is different than "works" in Romans 4. I have read enough of his writings on this subject to know it is not different. Below I will quote from Wright's stated veiws about "works" in Romans 4 and prove my point.

You are wrong here! This is precisely what Wright believes as he says:

This reading of Romans 4 suggests that the discussion of “works,” “reward,” “debt,” and so forth in w. 3-4 functions as a metaphor within the wider categories of “works of Torah” (i.e., badges of Jewish ethnic covenant membership). Rom 4:3-8 is sometimes cited as evidence that Paul did after all occasionally write as though he agreed with Martin Luther, as though (that is) the real issue he faced was the possibility of people trying to “earn” justification by “good works,” by successful moral effort. The (“for”) at the start of v. 2 suggests otherwise. The “justification by works” of which v. 2 speaks is clearly an explanation of something in v. 1; and v. 1, as we saw, raised the question not whether or not Abraham was a good moralist but whether those who are in Christ have become Abraham’s family according to the flesh. I suggest, therefore, that the metaphor of “earning” by “working,” which Paul exploits in w. 3-8, is secondary, occurring to Paul’s mind not because he is thinking about the propriety or otherwise of moral effort, but because he has been speaking of “works” in connection with “works of Torah” in the sense already outlined, and now sees a way of ramming the point home. http://ntwrightpage.com/Wright_Romans_Theology_Paul.pdf

He insists that "'earning' by 'working'....is secondary" in Paul's mind in Romans 4:1-8 where as the "works of Torah" are primary in Paul's mind. However, he fails to understand that Paul has introduced both together in Romans 2:9-15 as being one in purpose and that is to define moral righteousness and the basis for judgment. Thus becoming a Jew by "works of torah" simply means becoming morally acceptable before God on judgment day just as obeying conscience would have for its aim becoming morally acceptable before God on judgment day. Hence, Paul's definition of "works" is inclusive of whatever standard man may adopt to obtain moral acceptability before God on judgement day. That is why "the law" or PRINCIPLE of faith is contrasted to "works" rather than defined as "faithfulness" to the Law according to Wright! Here is where his synergistic definition between works and faith shows its ugly head.

Please don't respond by saying faith is not alone as that has no bearing on this issue. The issue is justification is WITHOUT FAITH but justification does not occur alone in the believer but is accompanied by regeneration which produces faithfunless by the indwelling power of the Holy Spirit in connection with the inward new man. Justification is not regeneration. Justification is not sanctification, even though justification by faith does not occur in a vacuum without regeneration.

 

PARTICIPANTS IN THE NEW CREATION
The Eucharist is not just about “me and my salvation.” It is a necessity, a part of what enables us to be God’s new creation people. We taste the new creation on our tongues, in our lips, in our mouths, in our bodies, so that we can go out and do the kind of work in the world that helps bring in the kingdom, God’s new creation.

Now, if you are isolated or for some reason can’t partake of the sacraments, I believe God does have ways of making it up to you. But the normal means to equip ourselves for participating in the new creation is the route given in the gospel, which is the physical feeding: the bread and the wine. This Eucharistic theology of new creation rejects the false antithesis between spirituality and action, the view that says the Lord’s Supper is either a piece of sympathetic magic or a bare signpost. - - http://www.reformedworship.org/article/march-2009/nt-wright-word-and-sacraments-eucharist

Therefore, says Paul, the spectacular Good Friday and Easter at the heart of the Christian story—Jesus’ dying and rising—happened to us in baptism. Paul doesn’t hold back here: he doesn’t hedge and say “as if.” He simply says, You died with Christ in baptism and you were raised with him through the waters into the new life of belonging to Jesus. - http://www.reformedworship.org/article/december-2008/n-t-wright-word-and-sacraments-baptism

Like the typical Catholic Priest, Wright argues that the sacraments are not isolated from the gospel or repentance and faith, but the bottom line is still the same - you partake of the NEW CREATION LIFE by partaking of the ordinances.

Paul repudiates this view in Romans 4:9-11 showing that sacraments or outward divine ordinances have NO ACTUAL RELATIONSHIP to obtaining justification or regenerative life - new creation life.

Wright is a very brilliant man who works hard to present a very consistent systematic theology. His view of justification is consistent with his view of sacramental salvation because he defines faith to be faithfulness and thus merges justification with sanctification.

Justifying faith is not faithfulness. The difference is between cause and affect. Justifying faith is precisely defined by Paul in Romans 4:16-21 to EXCLUDE all personal efforts. With regard to personal efforts Abraham and Sarah were "DEAD"! Justifying faith is believing in God's promise to obtain what YOU CANNOT obtain by personal efforts.Justifying faith is faith in Christ to obtain what you cannot obtain - righteousness before God by imputed righteousness found in the Person and work of Christ alone AND non-imputation of sin.

Again, this is not an issue about faith being alone, but justification by faith without works being a SEPARATE work from regeneration, even though both are inseparable in initial salvation.

 

I am not arguing that justification by faith occurs alone without regeneration which is the source of (not the power of) good works (see Eph. 2:10). Faithfulness is part of sanctification which has its roots in regeneration NOT justification. Justification is by faith WITHOUT WORKS because it is faith IN Christ's faithfulness which secures the full satisfaction of the Law of God in your behalf.

The "faithfulness" of Abraham did not justify him before God. His faithfulness was the product of God's grace in regeneration not his grounds for justification (Rom. 4:9-11; 16-21).

 

CLARITY and SIMPLICITY

A sign of a good teacher is that they can present difficult issues with clarity and simplicity. A sign of a real good deceiver is that their teaching is vague and unclear.

Dr. W.T. Wright is a very well educated man and has been teaching for years and there is no reason for his teachings to be unclear and ambiguous unless it is by design to deceive evangelicals into embracing a doctrine he knows that if he was to say it in clear terms they would reject.

He is trying to present a view of justification that is consistent with his view of sacramentalism. Once you bite into his view of justification it will lead you to his view of sacramentalism. His view of justification by faith is very simple, his view is justification is the union between Christ's faitfhulness and the elect's faithfulness and therefore justification by faithfulness.

That is not the Biblical view, and that is not Paul's view. Paul's view of justification by faith, is NOT justification by faithfulness. Faith does not equal faithfulness. Faithfulness is a consequence of faith not a synonym of faith.

Please do not come back with the lame argument that justification by faith without works does not mean faith is alone. Indeed, that argument is really the problem as it fails to distinguish between regeneration and justification. Justification does not occur in a vacuum and it does not occur without regeneration and that is precisely Paul's argument in Romans 6-8. However, regeneration is not justification. Regeneration is the source of righteous inclinations when empowered by the indwelling Spirit result in FAITHFULNESS or good works (Eph. 2:10), but justification is not regeneration and justification by faith is WITHOUT works.

 

Certainly it is a work, but NOT your work, it is the work of the Holy Spirit and therefore of "grace" (Rom. 4:16) which by its very nature is exclusive of YOUR works (Rom. 11:6). Faith is a "gift" of God inclusive of the whole periphrastic construct (perfect tense verb with present tense verb) - Eph. 2:8. That means it is part of the CREATIVE work of God (Eph. 2:10) completed at the point of quickening (Eph. 2:1,5,8,10) as that is precisely what Paul is speaking about when he says "saved by grace" as previously just defined by Paul in verse 5.

This is like mixing ice and fire - they do not mix. Rom. 2:13 is in a context of HYPOCRTICAL SELF-RIGHTEOUSNESS that believes through works they will escape the judgment of God (v. 3-5). In Romans 2:6-15 Paul simply sets forth the OBJECTIVE criteria that characterizes God's judgement according to the Law and conscience with Christ's life being the ultimate standard of both (v. 16) as declared in the gospel. There are no "doers of the law" because to violate one point is to violate EVERY POINT and transgression of the law makes you a law breaker not a law keeper and "all" have sinned. You are mixing sanctification with justification and calling it justification by faith.