Featured N.T. Wright and Justification

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.

 

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...

 

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.

 

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?).

 

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".

 

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.

 

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).

 

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.

 

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.