1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Featured Wright is Wrong on Justification

Discussion in 'Baptist Theology & Bible Study' started by The Biblicist, May 12, 2016.

Top Posters
Page 3 of 6
  1. The Biblicist

    The Biblicist Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2011
    Messages:
    16,008
    Likes Received:
    481
    No, I believe that is Paul's point - "becoming morally acceptable before God on judgment day just as obeying conscience" and that is what Wright is repudiating and refusing to acknowledge as you correctly suggest by saying:

    However, that is not Paul's point at all, although I am sure it is included in Paul's more extensive view of "works." By distorting Paul's view of "works" which is comprehensive of EVERYTHING derived from man, Wright has distorted the Biblical view of Justification by placing a restriction on the comprehensive meaning of "works" by Paul.
     
    #41 The Biblicist, May 13, 2016
  2. The Biblicist

    The Biblicist Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2011
    Messages:
    16,008
    Likes Received:
    481
    You have proved my point! You are mixing sanctification which is PARTIAL LIFE obedience to the Law whereas justification requires WHOLE life obedience to the Law. Sanctification is the work of the Holy Spirit IN and THROUGH the believer whereas justification has to do with the work of the Spirit IN and THROUGH the life of Christ. We are justified by HIS LIFE not by our SANCTIFIED life. You are teaching exactly what Seventh Day Adventist teach concerning justification.
     
    #42 The Biblicist, May 13, 2016
  3. Greektim

    Greektim Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 22, 2010
    Messages:
    3,214
    Likes Received:
    138
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Now you misunderstand me. I'm not saying Wright is correct or incorrect in his views. I'm saying that it appears you are forcing your understanding of Paul in Wright's explanation. What Wright means and what you mean concerning Paul is not the same. Therefore, your critique of him has not been accurate.
     
    #43 Greektim, May 13, 2016
  4. The Biblicist

    The Biblicist Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2011
    Messages:
    16,008
    Likes Received:
    481
    You are missing the point! It does not matter if YOU think his views are correct or incorrect but the point is that you have correctly stated his views which are at odd with Paul's view. He places a restriction on Paul's view of "works" when Paul's view is much wider and more comprehensive (thus including his restrictive view).
     
    #44 The Biblicist, May 13, 2016
  5. Greektim

    Greektim Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 22, 2010
    Messages:
    3,214
    Likes Received:
    138
    Faith:
    Baptist
    That might be your motive here, but when you try to expose his error, you do so via strawmen. Thus my challenge goes unanswered. I've yet to really see people here accurately present his views much less dismantle them. It's easier to take down the strawman.
     
    #45 Greektim, May 13, 2016
    • Agree Agree x 1
  6. kyredneck

    kyredneck Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2009
    Messages:
    20,511
    Likes Received:
    3,047
    Faith:
    Baptist
    If you can keep it simple and to the point (as in quote scripture), please show where the Bible speaks of sanctification as "PARTIAL LIFE obedience" and justification as "WHOLE life obedience" to the Law. This is complex to me, contrary to the simplicity that I see it as.

    It's HIM that has given us this heart that does 'by nature the things of the law'. It even goes as far as our thoughts, our attitude.
     
    #46 kyredneck, May 13, 2016
  7. The Biblicist

    The Biblicist Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2011
    Messages:
    16,008
    Likes Received:
    481
    By your criteria no one could prove he is wrong on anything. I quoted him as defining "works" as "works of the torah" or Jewishism and you reply I don't know what he means and then you provide what he means and I agree with you. Hence, he defines "works" in Romans 3-4 as "works of the Torah" and Jewishism and I quote him as saying so, you simply reply I don't know what he means by that, even when I agree with your definition of what he means by that. So what is the point of discussing this with you according to your kind of criteria????
     
    #47 The Biblicist, May 13, 2016
    Last edited: May 13, 2016
  8. Martin Marprelate

    Martin Marprelate Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2010
    Messages:
    8,916
    Likes Received:
    2,133
    Faith:
    Baptist
    It's in What St. Paul Really Said.

    “The doctrine of justification, in other words, is not merely a doctrine which Catholic and

    Protestant might just be able to agree on, as a result of hard ecumenical endeavour. It is itself

    the ecumenical doctrine, the doctrine that rebukes all our petty and often culture-bound

    church groupings, and which declares that all who believe in Jesus belong together in the one


    family.”

    But only if you first destroy the real meaning of Justification.
     
    #48 Martin Marprelate, May 13, 2016
  9. The Biblicist

    The Biblicist Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2011
    Messages:
    16,008
    Likes Received:
    481
    "Be ye therefore perfect EVEN AS God is perfect" is God's HOLINESS and "all have come short of the glory of God."God never sinned in the past, does not sin in the present and will not sin in the future - that is a WHOLE life of sinlessness.

    Typology - a lamb had to be without blemish, spotless representing the whole life of Christ.

    Partial obedience - 1 Jn. 1:8-10 - you do not live a sinless life - Hence, not ALL of your life is obedient = PARTIAL obedience.


    You are talking about sanctification not justification. Regeneration is the source of good works produced in and through us by the Spirit - Eph. 2:10 - "created....unto good works" not "justified by good works."
     
    #49 The Biblicist, May 13, 2016
  10. Greektim

    Greektim Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 22, 2010
    Messages:
    3,214
    Likes Received:
    138
    Faith:
    Baptist
    What do you think he means by "works of the torah"? To be clear, what do you think Wright believe Paul means by "works of the law"?
     
    #50 Greektim, May 13, 2016
  11. Greektim

    Greektim Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 22, 2010
    Messages:
    3,214
    Likes Received:
    138
    Faith:
    Baptist
    I'm not saying I agree here, but is what he says about justification here damnable? He is saying that the idea of justification is about membership in the covenant community beyond ethnic boundaries. I know you don't think his view of justification is correct. But is his view as stated here that bad?
     
    #51 Greektim, May 13, 2016
  12. The Biblicist

    The Biblicist Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2011
    Messages:
    16,008
    Likes Received:
    481
    Let me approach it this way. Paul could not be more jewish than Jesus nor could he understand what the "works of the law" any better than how Jesus understood them. When Jesus defined the works of the law NEGATIVELY in Matthew 5 and 15 he defined works that violated the Law as beginning with the "thoughts" (Mt. 15:17) and emotions (hate, lust) (Mt. 5) that manifested themselves if providence allowed in outward acts. Hence, "works of the law" negatively or "evil works" are inclusive of the intents an thoughts of the heart as well as words and deeds originating from man. Positvely, the "works of the Law" are those thoughts and intents of the heart manifested in words and actions that the Law approves. Jesus proves that the moral status of the heart is inseparable from words and actions with regard to the Law.

    W.T. Wright, subscribes that MORAL RIGHTEOUSNESS is secondary at best in Paul's thinking when it comes to "the works of the Torah." What is primary, as far as Wright is concerned is that which sustains jewishness as a cultural ethnic thing. Hence, what Wright believers is the PRIMARY idea that Paul is refuting is that you do not have to become a Jew, or one is not justified by Jewishness but by faith which he ultimately blends with the idea of faithfulness by the internal work of the Spirit in the believer.
     
    #52 The Biblicist, May 13, 2016
  13. The Biblicist

    The Biblicist Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2011
    Messages:
    16,008
    Likes Received:
    481
    If I may be permitted to answer your question, YES it is that bad BECAUSE his view of COVENANT COMMUNITY equals COVENANT LIFE which by his definition occurs through sacramentalism! That is a damnable doctrine that completely repudiates Pauline justification by faith "in uncircumcision."

    When you try to reconcile enemies (justifcation and sacramentalism) your teaching is going to be ambiguous, vague and full of contradictions and that is precisely the character of Wright's teachings. That is precisely why so many are divided over his teachings.
     
    #53 The Biblicist, May 13, 2016
  14. kyredneck

    kyredneck Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2009
    Messages:
    20,511
    Likes Received:
    3,047
    Faith:
    Baptist
    14 For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified. Heb 10

    Our eternal sanctification which is HIS doing.

    No, the context of Ro 2 is God rendering to each one according to their works which to those with the law written in their hearts is ETERNAL LIFE for their patience in well-doing. Once again:

    .....the doers of the law shall be justified: To 2:13
     
    #54 kyredneck, May 13, 2016
  15. JonC

    JonC Moderator
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2001
    Messages:
    35,198
    Likes Received:
    3,791
    Faith:
    Baptist
    If I understand your correctly, in short his position would be "damnable" at the onset because he is Anglican.
     
    #55 JonC, May 13, 2016
  16. Martin Marprelate

    Martin Marprelate Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2010
    Messages:
    8,916
    Likes Received:
    2,133
    Faith:
    Baptist
    According to Luther, the Doctrine of Justification is the doctrine by which the Church stands or falls. Wright would sweep away not just justification as the Church of God has known it since the Reformation, but also imputation and the active obedience of Christ, and probably assurance as well. So in my opinion, yes, it is that bad, and all the worse because he is so plausible. I do not like the words 'damnable' and 'heresy' and I never use them, but Wright's teachings are utterly destructive of sound doctrine and I would implore you and JonC to look at them again with fresh eyes and to reject them.

    'Thus says the LORD: "Stand in the ways and see, and ask for the old paths, where the good way is, and walk in it; then you will find rest for your souls"' (Jeremiah 6:16).
     
    #56 Martin Marprelate, May 13, 2016
  17. JonC

    JonC Moderator
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2001
    Messages:
    35,198
    Likes Received:
    3,791
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Hold up. I never said that I accepted Wright's view of Justification. You are putting doctrines into my theology that are not quite there, brother.

    I believe you are erroneous arguing that Wright is denying many things he presupposes. But imploring me to look again with fresh eyes and to reject his position is assuming too much, brother. While I believe Wright brings out some truths, I am not confident he has evidenced his position well enough. He is still trying to get the discussion moving.

    I strongly suspect that if Luther's view of Justification were not so entrenched in our theology already, but was just being introduced (or re-introduced), our dispute would look very much the same as it does here but for sides we are on.

    It may help to keep in mind that in terms of Baptist doctrine Luther is just as much the "heretic" as is Wright. I agree with John Piper that N.T. Wright is far from being guilty of departing from the faith with his position of Justification. (I suppose that makes Piper the heretic to some as well, if his view of sign gifts has not already put him there). Frown
     
    #57 JonC, May 13, 2016
  18. Martin Marprelate

    Martin Marprelate Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2010
    Messages:
    8,916
    Likes Received:
    2,133
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Well my apologies, brother. But actually, that is quite splendid! Since you are so well versed in his corpus, you are the very man to tell us why you disagree with Wright, and to put your finger on his cardinal error. :)
     
    #58 Martin Marprelate, May 13, 2016
  19. JonC

    JonC Moderator
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2001
    Messages:
    35,198
    Likes Received:
    3,791
    Faith:
    Baptist
    That's fine, Martin, no apologies needed. When we defend a part of another's position, or another's scholarship and faith in general, it is sometimes taken for granted that we share the same views.

    I'm going to answer your question two ways. First, I believe Wright has made a cardinal error in that he has broken the rule of tradition. Many will object to biblical views contrary to their tradition, thought, or interpretation as being unbiblical doctrine. For example, when I argued a meaning for "forsaken" other than a separation between the Father and Son on the cross, I had made what was in your view a cardinal error. N.T. Wright certainly does this.

    But second, in terms of orthodox Christianity, or even Reformed theology in general, I do not believe there is a cardinal error upon which one can place a finger. There are differences in interpretation, but there is no such error. The reason that I disagree with Wright is that I do not think he has evidenced his position well enough to accept. Indeed, Wright even says as much (and states his desire is dialogue and research on the topic).

    In truth, I am not confident that most here would entertain the doctrine of Luther were we alive during the Reformation and steeped in Catholic dogma. I am, actually, pretty sure many here would have sought to have Luther executed for his views. When our beliefs are challenged we get defensive - not because our beliefs are biblical but because they are our beliefs.

    What I do take from Wright, more than his conclusions, are the questions he asks. I believe there are areas where we seem to present the first century Jew as a sixteenth century Roman Catholic. It is difficult to fathom these similarities as being merely coincidental. So I do see merit in his investigation although I do not necessarily accept his conclusions.

    As Wright pointed out: "The greatest honor we can pay the Reformers is not to treat them as infallible - they would be horrified at that - but to do as they did."

    I believe the same of C.S. Lewis, Karl Barth, Martin Luther, John Owen, Joel Beeke, and Tim Keller (all of whom I have both read and appreciate but also disagree on some point). We all seem to think that everyone else is wrong on at least one thing, and we all are right in so thinking. Read, study, learn...but do so with discernment. Take what is good, leave what is bad.

    But we need to stop making villains out of saints. These Christians with whom you disagree were purchased by the blood of God's Son. He died for them. He suffered, was beaten, hung on the cross and rose again for you, me, Biblicist, Greektim, John Wesley, and NT Wright (among others). Denounce bad doctrine. But remember "damnable" does not merely mean "disagreeable".
     
    #59 JonC, May 13, 2016
    • Like Like x 1
  20. Greektim

    Greektim Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 22, 2010
    Messages:
    3,214
    Likes Received:
    138
    Faith:
    Baptist
    But that quote doesn't mention sacrament theology. And if I were to be a proponent of the NPP (and I do not have the same views of the sacraments as Wright does), then could I say the same thing as what you quoted from him above and it be damnable?
     
    #60 Greektim, May 13, 2016
(You must log in or sign up to post here.)
Page 3 of 6
Loading...