Featured N.T. Wright and Justification

I'm not sure. I haven't really fully considered N.T. Wright's position. I've avoided it because....well...it's a lot.

I assume his view is different than the traditional Reformed position simply because so many Reformed have condemned his position.


Let's look at it together (I haven't read what I've quoted of him, but simply offer it here as it is Wright telling us his view rather than somebody else telling us what he believes).

Here is N.T. Wright, a summary of his position in his words (from Bible Review, 2001):


We begin with Paul’s view of the future.
(a) The one true God will finally judge the whole world; on that day, some will be found guilty, and others will be upheld (Romans 2:1-16). God’s vindication of the latter on the last day is his act of final “justification” (Romans 2:13). The word carries overtones of a court of law.

(b) But not only a court of law. Justification is part of Paul’s picture of the family God promised in his covenant with Abraham. God’s judicial announcement on the last day in favor of certain people is also the declaration that they are part of the family promised to Abraham (Romans 4; see also Galatians 3). This is why law-court imagery is appropriate: When God entered into a covenant with Abraham, the purpose was, and remains, to put the whole world to rights, to deal with sin and death.

(c) This double declaration (judicial and covenantal) will take the form of an event. God’s people will be resurrected and will share the promised inheritance, the renewed creation (Romans 8). This event, which from one point of view is the “justification” of God’s people (Romans 8:32-34), is from another their “salvation”: their rescue from the corruption of death, which for Paul is the result of sin. The final resurrection is the ultimate rescue, which God promised from the beginning (Romans 4:18-25).

Moving back from future to past, God’s action in Jesus forms Paul’s template for this final justification.
(a) Jesus has been faithful, obedient to God’s saving purposes right up to death (Romans 5:12-21; Philippians 2:6-9). God has now declared decisively that Jesus is the Son of God, the Messiah, who encapsulates Israel’s destiny (Romans 1:3-5).

(b) Jesus’ resurrection was, for Paul, the proof that God really had dealt with sin (1 Corinthians 15:17). With the faithful death of Jesus, God accomplished what had been promised to Abraham, and “what the law could not do” (Romans 8:3): For those who belong to the Messiah, there is “no condemnation” (Romans 8:1,31-39).

(c) The event which brought all this about was, of course, the resurrection of the crucified Jesus.

Justification in the present is based on God’s past accomplishment in the Messiah, and anticipates the future verdict. This present justification has exactly the same pattern.
(a) God vindicates in the present, in advance of the last day, all those who believe in Jesus as Messiah and Lord (Romans 3:21-31, 4:13-25, 10:9-13). The law-court language indicates what is meant. “Justification” is not God’s act of changing the heart or character; Paul uses the verb “call,” the call that comes through the word and the Spirit, to denote that change. “Justification” has a specific, and narrower, reference: It is God’s declaration that the person is now in the right, which confers on them the status of “righteous.”

(b) This present declaration unites all believers into a single people, the one family promised to Abraham (Galatians 2:14-3:29; Romans 3:27-4:17), the people whose sins have been dealt with and forgiven as part of the fulfilled promise of covenant renewal (Jeremiah 31:31-34). Membership in this family cannot be played off against forgiveness of sins. The two belong together.

(c) The event in the present that corresponds to Jesus’ death and resurrection in the past, and the resurrection of all believers in the future, is baptism into Christ (Galatians 3:26-29; Romans 6:2-11). Baptism is not, as some have supposed, a “work” which one “performs” to earn God’s favor. It is, for Paul, the sacrament of God’s free grace. Paul can speak of those who have believed and been baptized as already “saved,” albeit “in hope” (Romans 8:24).

Three outstanding matters remain.

1. The faith in question is faith in “the God who raised Jesus from the dead.” It comes about through the announcement of God’s word, the gospel, which works powerfully in the hearts of hearers, “calling” them to believe, or indeed (as Paul often puts it) to “obey” the gospel (Romans 1:16-17; 1 Thessalonians 1:3-5, 2:13; 2 Thessalonians 1:8). This faith looks backwards to what God has done in Christ; Christian faith relies on that, rather than on anything that is true of oneself. For Paul, this meant refusing to regard the badges of Jewish law observance, “the works of the law,” as the decisive factor (Philippians 3:2-11). And it looks forward to the final day. This faith is the first sign of new God-given life, and therefore truly anticipates the final verdict (Philippians 1:6).

2. By “the gospel” Paul does not mean “justification by faith.” He means the announcement that the crucified and risen Jesus is Lord. To believe this message—to give believing allegiance to Jesus as Messiah and Lord—is to be justified in the present by faith (whether or not one has even heard of justification by faith). Justification by faith is a second-order doctrine: To believe it is both to have assurance (believing that one will be vindicated on the last day [Romans 5:1-5]) and to know that one belongs in the single family of God, called to share table fellowship with all other believers without distinction (Galatians 2:11-21). But one is not justified by faith by believing in justification by faith, but by believing in Jesus.

3. Justification is thus the declaration of God, the just judge, that someone has had their sins forgiven and that they are a member of the covenant family, the family of Abraham. That is what the word means in Paul’s writings. It doesn’t describe how people get into God’s forgiven family; it declares that they are in. That may seem a small distinction, but it is vital.

The three tenses of justification have often been confused, causing some of the great problems of understanding Paul. If we keep them both plainly distinguished and appropriately interrelated, clarity, and perhaps even agreement, might follow. If justification is about belonging to a single family, it would be good if that family—and its friends—could try to agree about what it means.



Note....I found the summary in his words but haven't read it yet. I plan on reading it and working through where I stand regarding his comments as I go.

 

We begin with Paul’s view of the future.
(a) The one true God will finally judge the whole world; on that day, some will be found guilty, and others will be upheld (Romans 2:1-16). God’s vindication of the latter on the last day is his act of final “justification” (Romans 2:13). The word carries overtones of a court of law.



I agree with Wright here. He is looking to that "Day of Judgment" and justification seems to point to such a time (without a judgment, justification does not seem to make sense).



(b) Jesus’ resurrection was, for Paul, the proof that God really had dealt with sin (1 Corinthians 15:17). With the faithful death of Jesus, God accomplished what had been promised to Abraham, and “what the law could not do” (Romans 8:3): For those who belong to the Messiah, there is “no condemnation” (Romans 8:1,31-39).



I agree with Wright here as well.



(c) This double declaration (judicial and covenantal) will take the form of an event. God’s people will be resurrected and will share the promised inheritance, the renewed creation (Romans 8). This event, which from one point of view is the “justification” of God’s people (Romans 8:32-34), is from another their “salvation”: their rescue from the corruption of death, which for Paul is the result of sin. The final resurrection is the ultimate rescue, which God promised from the beginning (Romans 4:18-25).



I hadn't thought of it this way, but I agree again here. There is both a judicial aspect (God has dealt with sin) and a covenantal aspect (in Christ there is no condemnation, the New Covenant with a people set aside to and for God....Spurgeon called this "God's portion").

 

Moving back from future to past, God’s action in Jesus forms Paul’s template for this final justification.

(a) Jesus has been faithful, obedient to God’s saving purposes right up to death (Romans 5:12-21; Philippians 2:6-9). God has now declared decisively that Jesus is the Son of God, the Messiah, who encapsulates Israel’s destiny (Romans 1:3-5).



I agree but don't like the language. God had "declared decisively that Jesus is the Son of God, the Messiah, who encapsulates Israel’s destiny" before the cross - but I get that Wright is referring to the act of the resurrection. So I do agree.



(b) Jesus’ resurrection was, for Paul, the proof that God really had dealt with sin (1 Corinthians 15:17). With the faithful death of Jesus, God accomplished what had been promised to Abraham, and “what the law could not do” (Romans 8:3): For those who belong to the Messiah, there is “no condemnation” (Romans 8:1,31-39).



I agree with Wright here. The fact of Jesus having victory over sin and death, as evidenced by the resurrection, is proof that God has dealt with sin. I don't believe this was lost on Paul.



(c) The event which brought all this about was, of course, the resurrection of the crucified Jesus.


I agree.

 

I've got to take this part slower.


Justification in the present is based on God’s past accomplishment in the Messiah, and anticipates the future verdict. This present justification has exactly the same pattern.

(a) God vindicates in the present, in advance of the last day, all those who believe in Jesus as Messiah and Lord (Romans 3:21-31, 4:13-25, 10:9-13). The law-court language indicates what is meant. “Justification” is not God’s act of changing the heart or character; Paul uses the verb “call,” the call that comes through the word and the Spirit, to denote that change. “Justification” has a specific, and narrower, reference: It is God’s declaration that the person is now in the right, which confers on them the status of “righteous.”


Ok....so in this context "justification" is God declaring men to be "just" based on the future (the "Day of Judgement" when they are justified).

This itself is not a change but a declaration that these people will be saved (will avoid the wrath to come).


I think I agree with this. But I am not sure. His Spirit IS in is at present. Wright is not denying this but simply focusing on Paul's meaning.



(b) This present declaration unites all believers into a single people, the one family promised to Abraham (Galatians 2:14-3:29; Romans 3:27-4:17), the people whose sins have been dealt with and forgiven as part of the fulfilled promise of covenant renewal (Jeremiah 31:31-34). Membership in this family cannot be played off against forgiveness of sins. The two belong together.



I agree with this. I think that one problem @Piper seemed to have is Wright's comment "[m]embership in this family cannot be played off against forgiveness of sins. The two belong together."

But I am not sure we can separate the two. Being "in Christ" includes our sins being forgiven ("in Him there is no condemnation"). I agree with Wright that these go together.




(c) The event in the present that corresponds to Jesus’ death and resurrection in the past, and the resurrection of all believers in the future, is baptism into Christ (Galatians 3:26-29; Romans 6:2-11). Baptism is not, as some have supposed, a “work” which one “performs” to earn God’s favor. It is, for Paul, the sacrament of God’s free grace. Paul can speak of those who have believed and been baptized as already “saved,” albeit “in hope” (Romans 8:24).

I agree here.



Note: in retrospect and given points b and c, I do agree with point a.

 

1. The faith in question is faith in “the God who raised Jesus from the dead.” It comes about through the announcement of God’s word, the gospel, which works powerfully in the hearts of hearers, “calling” them to believe, or indeed (as Paul often puts it) to “obey” the gospel (Romans 1:16-17; 1 Thessalonians 1:3-5, 2:13; 2 Thessalonians 1:8). This faith looks backwards to what God has done in Christ; Christian faith relies on that, rather than on anything that is true of oneself. For Paul, this meant refusing to regard the badges of Jewish law observance, “the works of the law,” as the decisive factor (Philippians 3:2-11). And it looks forward to the final day. This faith is the first sign of new God-given life, and therefore truly anticipates the final verdict (Philippians 1:6).



Ok....now I am even more comfortable agreeing with (a) in the last part. I agree with Wright here.

Thus far I do not see anything that wouldn't fit into the traditional position....maybe that position needs to be explained?

Anyway, nothing so far that I see as a real heresy.



2. By “the gospel” Paul does not mean “justification by faith.” He means the announcement that the crucified and risen Jesus is Lord. To believe this message—to give believing allegiance to Jesus as Messiah and Lord—is to be justified in the present by faith (whether or not one has even heard of justification by faith). Justification by faith is a second-order doctrine: To believe it is both to have assurance (believing that one will be vindicated on the last day [Romans 5:1-5]) and to know that one belongs in the single family of God, called to share table fellowship with all other believers without distinction (Galatians 2:11-21). But one is not justified by faith by believing in justification by faith, but by believing in Jesus.



I agree with Wright here, and appreciate his explanation of the gospel as opposed to justification.



3. Justification is thus the declaration of God, the just judge, that someone has had their sins forgiven and that they are a member of the covenant family, the family of Abraham. That is what the word means in Paul’s writings. It doesn’t describe how people get into God’s forgiven family; it declares that they are in. That may seem a small distinction, but it is vital.


Ok....this speaks directly to the OP.

Wright says "[j]ustification is thus the declaration of God, the just judge, that someone has had their sins forgiven and that they are a member of the covenant family, the family of Abraham."

I do not see this as heresy. God declared that one has had their sins forgiven and are members of the body of Christ.

I agree with Wright here, as I see nothing objectionable.


[Wrights Conclusion:]
The three tenses of justification have often been confused, causing some of the great problems of understanding Paul. If we keep them both plainly distinguished and appropriately interrelated, clarity, and perhaps even agreement, might follow. If justification is about belonging to a single family, it would be good if that family—and its friends—could try to agree about what it means.



Having walked through Wright's explanation, and reviewing Scripture, I agree with him.

In dealing with Paul's use of "justification" I can see that I have made the mistake of reading other doctrines (which are true) into "justification".

Regardless, I do not see how N.T. Wright's view of "justification" as used by Paul equates to heresy.

In fact, it appears that Wright's own description of what he believes goes against the accusations of the OP. Wright does - as charged - say that "justification" does not mean forgiveness, but he DOES NOT say that it is only a Covenant relationship (he said it is a declaration that one has had their sins forgiven and are in the covenant).

 

@DaveXR650

The only thing that I can see off hand anyway, that is different is that I've read many Reformed people describe justification as God viewing us as perfectly keeping the Law based on Christ as the perfect Law keeper.

Instead Wright seems to be saying that justification is God's legal declaration that our sins have been forgiven and we are "in Christ" as a type of righteousness that is a part from the Law.

 

Well....Reformed theologians have different ideas (Wright is a Reformed theologian, and so was Barth). While I have read several who view justification as related to the Law, I have also read many who don't.

I think that his NPP has caused division in general, but perhaps his view of justification defined is not the most debated point of contention.

 

I found this from Phil Johnson:

What’s Wrong with Wright: Examining the New Perspective on Paul by Phil Johnson

Johnson lists the primary of rejecting Wright is that it endangers the doctrine of justification by faith alone.

His second reason is that it can call into question the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement.

 

@DaveXR650

Sorry to keep replying but I'm doing so as I read.

It looks like the biggest disagreement with Wright is his view of ancient Judaism.

Where the Reformers presented the Jews as viewing works as a way to earn justification Wright contends that the Jews believed themselves to be God's chosen people by birth with their concern about what works demonstrate that they have (or will be in) a right standing in that Covenant.


But Wright's argument is that justification by faith, "while not misleading, does not do justice to the richness and precision of Paul's doctrine" (What Paul Really Said, pg. 113).

 

But is it fair?

Reading the article by Phil Johnson I would think that Wright rejected justification by faith and the essential aspect of forgiveness.

BUT reading the book that Johnson is comment on, I don't get that from Wright himself. (I purchased the book after reading the article, and have not read it but skipped to the parts Johnson addressed.... I do not believe Johnson does justice to Wright's points).


To illustrate, were I to form my opinion of John Owen by reading the opinions of non-Calvinists then I would conclude Owen was way off the mark to the point he had no idea of the gospel of Jesus Christ.


My point is it is wrong to depend on criticisms of Wright (or anybody) based on Wright's critics.

Where I fault Wright is in assuming that the first century Jewish understanding of justification should be ours. The first century Jew was not looking for the kind of Messiah God provided. The Jewish religious debate was primarily over purity laws and what level of obedience would usher in God's kingdom (which they saw as earthly).



Another question we have to ask is if Wright does miss the mark....exactly what mark are we talking about? The actual biblical text (obviously not), Reformed theology (perhaps, but I doubt it), or one position within Reformed theology that views the New Covenant as the righteousness of God manifested through the Law (righteousness equates to perfect Law keeping and synonymous with salvation)?

 

Yes, it is fair just as it was fair for the Reformers to suggest that the Roman Catholic Church had gotten justification wrong for centuries. And it is fair to suggest Wright got it wrong.

I never understood the mentality that the Reformers are above question. We should welcome questioning. If a doctrine is correct then it will stand up to questioning.


To be more precise, N.T. Wright - although I disagree with his reasoning here - is more an expert on ancient Judaism than were the Puritan writers. This is not because of intelligence but because more is known and more resources are available at a greater scope. And Wright is no less a theologian than the Puritans.