N.T. Wright and Justification

[Piper]

I hear people quote Wright all the time. However, I do believe he is heretical on Justification.

regarding Romans 3:23-26 He says, “Within this context, ‘justification,’ as seen in 3:24-26, means that those who believe in Jesus Christ are declared to be members of the true covenant family which of course means that their sins are forgiven, since that was the purpose of the covenant.” In Wright’s construction, forgiveness of sin has the character of a by-product, a bonus that comes with covenant membership.

That is a short summary of what CE Hill said at Ligonier.

To read a full discussion, go here: N.T. Wright on Justification by C.E. Hill

But what is the historic view of Justification?

Don Carson says it succinctly
"God declares sinners just, and He does so on the basis of Christ’s death and resurrection on our behalf. God looks at me in my sin and He sees me for what I am, but He reckons my sin to Christ, and Christ cancels it in His own death on the cross. And He reckons Christ’s righteousness to me, and He declares, “That is entirely satisfactory. This pleases me. It’s the plan. It’s what I sent Christ to do.” He died for sinners, and He declares this particular sinner just before Him."



So, do you think that NT Wright is off the mark?

 

[JonC]

The problem with Wright's view of justification is that you can't summarize it in a few sentences. Wright explained his view in a very short book...just over 1,800 pages.

John Piper remarked, in his book criticizing Wright's view, that he may be correct but as it stands it is unteachable to the laity and is not concise. Wright remarked that many of his conclusions may be incorrect but that he wanted the theological arena to come together to discuss the issue (the issue he identified with the 16th Century understanding of the Jewish concepts).


While Wright may indeed be wrong, it is not a heresy. The general view existed long before Wright within Christian orthodoxy. But it is a minority position (not quite in the fringe of orthodoxy ... which is still orthodoxy...but certainly a debated view.

I believe Wright is correct in his criticism of the 16th century view of justification. I am not convinced that his view of justification is correct.

 

[Van]

Yes, obviously N. T. Wright is wrong.

Justification refers to God making a sinner righteous. God does not declare the person righteous but makes the person righteous by the "washing of regeneration." Romans 5:19, Titus 3:5.

The mistaken view comes from sinners self declaring themselves righteous, or with God examining someone and finding them righreous or unrighteous. However, for a sinner to become righteous requires the washing of regeneration. Otherwise Christ death did not provide the sacrifice required for justification.

Note the OT Saints gained approval by faith, but that did not allow them to enter heaven. They had to wait to be made perfect by the washing of regeneration.

Both views presented by the OP are unstudied and unbiblical.

How do unholy sinners, from conception undergo the washing of regeneration? God credits their faith as righteousness and transfers them into the kingdom of His beloved Son.

 

[Marooncat79]

If it takes 1800 pages to explain your view, you have missed the mark

 

[JonC]

If it takes 1800 pages to explain your view, you have missed the mark

I would agree....but only if the prevailing view in his tradition was wrong (then explaining his view would include retracing history to the error, and then going back through the history of the Hebrew people).

For me, I wouldn't read it. While N.T. Wright is probably the most respected scholar in Paul for those my age (50+, as he was relied upon by other theologians ....like Sproul, MacArthur, Packer, etc.), he is also very repetitive.

The problem he identified with Reformed theology had been identified long before Wright.

I'd probably read one of Wrights shorter explanations. But I am not going to read so lengthy a book, especially when Wright himself takes his conclusions with a grain of salt.

I'd rather watch Titanic again....thought that ship would never sink...

 

[DaveXR650]

I came across this comparing Wright to the Puritan Baxter on justification.
Helm's Deep: Analysis 15 - Baxter's Soup and Wright's Soap
And the clearest and best I've seen on the Reformed position would be "Justification Vindicated" by Robert Trail.

I personally think the differences become really nuanced in practice at least for those of us who are not theologians or not responsible for defending a school of thought. I mean are you really going to call someone a heretic who disagrees that it is by "faith alone" when you then turn around and say that by the way, we mean it is a "faith that is never alone"?

 

[JonC]

I came across this comparing Wright to the Puritan Baxter on justification.
Helm's Deep: Analysis 15 - Baxter's Soup and Wright's Soap
And the clearest and best I've seen on the Reformed position would be "Justification Vindicated" by Robert Trail.

I personally think the differences become really nuanced in practice at least for those of us who are not theologians or not responsible for defending a school of thought. I mean are you really going to call someone a heretic who disagrees that it is by "faith alone" when you then turn around and say that by the way, we mean it is a "faith that is never alone"?

We actually float around the word "heresy" too much. I mentioned this with Torrance (who used two creeds to defend orthodoxy).

The word ends up meaning "the guy disagrees with me or my denomination".

N.T. Wright is obviously not a heretic when it comes to Christian orthodoxy. He does hold a view that is definitely not Baptist (he is Anglican).

R.C. Sproul was not a heretic because of his view of Baptism. But he wasn't Baptist.

 

[Piper]

Yes, obviously N. T. Wright is wrong.

Justification refers to God making a sinner righteous. God does not declare the person righteous but makes the person righteous by the "washing of regeneration." Romans 5:19, Titus 3:5.

The mistaken view comes from sinners self declaring themselves righteous, or with God examining someone and finding them righreous or unrighteous. However, for a sinner to become righteous requires the washing of regeneration. Otherwise Christ death did not provide the sacrifice required for justification.

Note the OT Saints gained approval by faith, but that did not allow them to enter heaven. They had to wait to be made perfect by the washing of regeneration.

Both views presented by the OP are unstudied and unbiblical.

How do unholy sinners, from conception undergo the washing of regeneration? God credits their faith as righteousness and transfers them into the kingdom of His beloved Son.

I believe that Justification is when God imputes the righteousness of Christ. He declares us righteous.

Rom 4:4-5 “Now to the one who works, his wages are not counted as a gift but as his due. And to the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness”

 

[JonC]

I believe that Justification is when God imputes the righteousness of Christ. He declares us righteous.

Rom 4:4-5 “Now to the one who works, his wages are not counted as a gift but as his due. And to the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness”

How would you define "righteous"?

I have heard several ideas, so maybe that deserves addressing - if anything for those who may pass by exploring our faith.

I have read some describe "righteous" as perfectly obeying the Mosaic Law, perfectly obeying God's moral law (which I would assume is broader), and this attributed to us based on Christ's obedience.

I have also seen it described it by others in N.T. Wrights terms (as placed "in Christ", clothed in His righteousness, belonging to God's covenant people or "the elect").

And I have seen it described as an actual change, as God making us righteous (removing our old heart, giving us a new one, putting His Spirit in us).

I've probably ran into a few others, but I think you see what I mean. We need to decide what this means (declared, positional, ontological?).

 

[DaveXR650]

We need to decide what this means (declared, positional, ontological?).

Well, that's the whole issue. To be righteous would be to be "right with God" or to be in a state where one would be if not actually approved of by God, at least to not be offensive or be the cause of sanctions or punishment by God.

So then the question would be what is your default or starting point regarding your standing before God and then is there anything you should do or can do to improve this and maintain this favorable standing before him. But most of us would have already gotten past that point. Most modern Christians believe we start out either/or from birth but certainly by conduct and attitude and failure to obey to not be in a natural good standing before God. So the question we all ask is "How can a man be right with God?" Which turns out to be the same as the title of the work by Horatius Bonar.

 

[JonC]

Well, that's the whole issue. To be righteous would be to be "right with God" or to be in a state where one would be if not actually approved of by God, at least to not be offensive or be the cause of sanctions or punishment by God.

So then the question would be what is your default or starting point regarding your standing before God and then is there anything you should do or can do to improve this and maintain this favorable standing before him. But most of us would have already gotten past that point. Most modern Christians believe we start out either/or from birth but certainly by conduct and attitude and failure to obey to not be in a natural good standing before God. So the question we all ask is "How can a man be right with God?" Which turns out to be the same as the title of the work by Horatius Bonar.

I agree, mostly.

In regards to our standing with God prior to being made righteous (whether made or declared) we were in an unrighteous state.

The only part I am not sure about is your wording "is there anything you should do or can do to improve this". If our standing with God I agree. But this does not always relate to the standard of our unrighteous.

What I mean is our being unrighteous refers to God's righteousness as a standard. But our unrighteousness was based on moral law (righteousness centered on obeying the Law, God's law, or God's moral standard. When it comes to righteousness in Christ we are speaking of the righteousness of God manifested apart from the Law.

This is where I am not sure we always speak of the same thing.

And this is my largest criticism of Wright, insofar as I have understood him from these threads.

We can say that the Jewish idea of righteousness is important. But we have to also consider that the Jews misunderstood how to get there.


The problem I have with basing our righteousness primarily in declaration (that it means we are declared righteous) is it ignores that we must be righteous in a final state.

That is one thing I agree with Wright on - the righteousness we currently have is an expression of the state we will have in the future based on our position in the New Covenant - our being placed "in Christ".

 

[Van]

I believe that Justification is when God imputes the righteousness of Christ. He declares us righteous.

Rom 4:4-5 “Now to the one who works, his wages are not counted as a gift but as his due. And to the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness”

1) Why did Christ die if God has chosen to declare sinners righteous?
2) What does the washing of regeneration accomplish if God simply declares people righteous?
3) What is the circumcision of Christ?

I believe individuals receive justification (reconciled to God) when God transfers their human spirit into the Body of Christ and they undergo the washing of regeneration. Romans 4 does not say Abraham was made righteous, it says his faith was credited as righteousness.

but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness”

 

[37818]

I hear people quote Wright all the time. However, I do believe he is heretical on Justification.

regarding Romans 3:23-26 He says, “Within this context, ‘justification,’ as seen in 3:24-26, means that those who believe in Jesus Christ are declared to be members of the true covenant family

The problem with Wright's view of justification is that you can't summarize it in a few sentences. Wright explained his view in a very short book...just over 1,800 pages.

John Piper remarked, in his book criticizing Wright's view, that he may be correct but as it stands it is unteachable to the laity and is not concise.

So some how in all that jargon it is to be understood not to be Biblical?

 

[JonC]

So some how in all that jargon it is to be understood not to be Biblical?

No. Just like with the traditional Reformed view it is a matter of accessing how the initial audience would have understood justification.

The Bible speaks of righteousness (this is the concept to which "justification" refers). But short of linking righteousness to God's word, and to God Himself, the Bible does not offer a concise definition.

God is seen as righteous, but in the Bible this does not mean "moral" (in referring to divine righteousness, for example, the Psalmist speaks of God's faithfulness to His Word).


So N.T. Wright's position of justification as it relates to Paul's use and his audience's understanding of the word is no less biblical than the traditional Reformed position.

 

[JonC]

I came across this comparing Wright to the Puritan Baxter on justification.
Helm's Deep: Analysis 15 - Baxter's Soup and Wright's Soap
And the clearest and best I've seen on the Reformed position would be "Justification Vindicated" by Robert Trail.

I personally think the differences become really nuanced in practice at least for those of us who are not theologians or not responsible for defending a school of thought. I mean are you really going to call someone a heretic who disagrees that it is by "faith alone" when you then turn around and say that by the way, we mean it is a "faith that is never alone"?

I have been reading a little of Wright (I was curious as there seems to be hints on this thread of a works based righteousness).

Wright contends that works were viewed as current signs pointing to a future state (that evidence now point to a future righteousness).

I am not sure that this is very different from how Baptists view works. At least I believe that the fruits of the Spirit point to a salvation that will be fully realized in the future.

But I am not sure that I would use "justification" that way (I'm not sure it is right or wrong.mI just have never looked at it that way).

 

[37818]

No. Just like with the traditional Reformed view it is a matter of accessing how the initial audience would have understood justification.

The Bible speaks of righteousness (this is the concept to which "justification" refers). But short of linking righteousness to God's word, and to God Himself, the Bible does not offer a concise definition.

God is seen as righteous, but in the Bible this does not mean "moral" (in referring to divine righteousness, for example, the Psalmist speaks of God's faithfulness to His Word).


So N.T. Wright's position of justification as it relates to Paul's use and his audience's understanding of the word is no less biblical than the traditional Reformed position.

So what is the difference we should understand?

 

[JonC]

So what is the difference we should understand?

I think what is important is to listen to arguments.

Wright observed that Reformed theology approached the initial audience in a very 15-16th century context (Paul's audience looks very much like the Reformers and their followers and the Roman government looks very much like the Roman Catholic Church). The Reformers adopted a type of doctrine that was in opposition to Roman Catholic doctrine.

This, at least, should make us consider whether a mistake was made, to reexamine both first century Jewish history and Scripture.

Instead there is typically a cry of "heresy" and "unbiblical", ultimately meaning that Wright dated to challenge the traditional Reformed understanding.

John Piper made this argument, not his best moment, by questioning whether we should even reexamine a doctrine that had existed since the 16th Century. I think that the Reformers would have objected to that reasoning, for if it were legitimate then the Reformation was not.


So the difference is whether we are declared righteous (declared just), made to actually be just, or are positional benefactors of righteousness (righteous because a covenantal relationship, being "in Christ" or clothed with His righteousness)....or a combination.


I personally believe all three are correct. God declared that we are righteous, based on our New Covenant position "in Christ", and that this reflects a future state where we are ultimately and perfectly confirmed to His image.

 

[DaveXR650]

The Reformed position on justification seems to me to be complete and I don't see where it really lacks anything. But it is a system and from time to time people take parts of it and go off in directions that cause big problems.

They teach that "a law condemned sinner is freely justified by God's grace, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus; that he is justified only for the righteousness of Christ imputed to him by God of his free grace, and received by faith alone as an instrument; which faith is the gift of the same grace".

As to questions about whether "imputed" righteousness has any actual meaning they say "all that believe truly on Jesus Christ, as they are justified by the sprinkling of his blood, so they are sanctified by the effusion of his Spirit". "All that boast of their faith in Christ, and yet live after their own lusts, and the course of this world, have no true faith at all, but in their profession, and contradicting practice, blaspheme the name of God.".

Furthermore, they teach that " the daily study of sanctification is a necessary exercise to all that are in Christ, so the rule of their direction therein, is the holy, spotless law of God in Christ's hand, that the Holy Spirit is the beginner and advancer of this work, and faith in Jesus Christ the great mean thereof; that no man can be holy till he be in Christ, and united to him by faith; and that no man is truly in Christ, but he is thereby sanctified."

I say all that to say that I don't know anything lacking in the above that Baxter, or Wright, or the Roman Catholics, or the Early Church Fathers have covered. If anyone does, please respond. I bet you can answer any question from the above that is brought up regarding justification or the obtaining a right standing before God.

 

[DaveXR650]

The above was from "Justification Vindicated" by Robert Traill. It was an answer to Arminianism and also to the charge that had been leveled against himself, that of Antinomianism. I forgot to give the reference to the quotes.

 

[JonC]

The Reformed position on justification seems to me to be complete and I don't see where it really lacks anything.

I agree. It is complete. But to be fair, all positions on justification are complete (even N.T. Wright's view is complete).

But complete doesn't mean correct.

I am not taking sides here, but I do believe that N.T. Wright provides value in that he does identify some aspects of the traditional Reformed position on justification that should be examined closely.

This should be done, IMHO, anytime objections arise. We should listen and examine carefully what others observe rather than become defensive and hostile when challenged.