Featured N.T. Wright and Justification

I wasn't using a commentary on Reformed anything.

I am not Reformed anything.

Yep. Not that you explained yourself on it.

New thread: Primitive Baptist? How do you see 'salvation', as related to you?

 

Is Wright saying that justification only occurs at the end of time where God does what? Either judges what a man has done or finally declares that a man has been put into the covenant with those who are God's people. If it is the latter then they must be declared to be in the covenant by God. Based on what? Faith? Faith in what? The work of Christ in the atonement. Then he has no argument with me. Based on some work or works or an external sign? Then he has a problem with most Christian doctrine.

I think the issue here is that we are faced with a logical problem that involves one of two things. Either God declares us "in", as in justified or part of his covenant people and by definition that means the doctrine of imputation is true. Or, it is based on God judging as to whether we have performed some requirement or requirements and this occurs at the end, whether the final judgement or at least the end of our lives. What I am saying is that Wright cannot say that imputation of righteousness is wrong because it isn't real and then turn around and say that a declaration that you are now in a covenant relation is real and done in the exact same way - by God's declaration. If you can have one then why not the other.

Once again, a declaration, whether it's that you are now a covenant member, or a declaration that you have had Christ's righteousness imputed to you involve the same action on the part of God. It's a declaration. And what I think the problem here and what all the people who object to Wright and Baxter or Arminius for that matter - is that if you reject this declaration, which is what the doctrine of imputation is, then you are now faced with some type of thing that must be done, or works, in order to be justified. This is true in all cases where you are not relying upon a "declaration" of justification by God. This is precisely why you have the articles comparing Baxter and Wright and contrasting and comparing them with Jewish legalism.

So my point, and the reason why I keep referring back to post 18 is that I think the Reformers doctrine of how this all works - in that you have justification by declaration, based on the work of Christ - but then you have the absolute necessity of certain conduct as the proof and vindication of the truth of God's declaration - as the best explanation of all this.

 

That's why Wright is dangerous. And it also shows that you have not been honest in what you just said. Why in the world were you reading Wright, and being influenced by him, and then coming on here and bloviating about how you only use scripture. Which is it?

 

@JonC. The way you have described it there I would have no problem with. The trouble is what people do with it. What initially attracted me to reformed theology was that I felt that our non-Calv baptist church so emphasized our declaration of righteousness at the expense of everything else that a Christian life being lived became totally optional. So I found the Puritans with their rigorous pursuit of holiness, Baxter and also Wesley very attractive. Wright may fit there too but I just haven't read as much of him If that is what Wright is doing I have no argument with him. But my caution would be to others that a complete view of reformed theology does not have those deficiencies as one can see if they carefully look at post 18 above, which is Traill, or read the whole of any other reformed literature. In addition, it is in my opinion, worth taking the effort to make the careful distinction that requires the work of Christ to be the only cause of our justification in the sense of actual merit.

 

Questions always come up about what is the law for and what do you have to do with it if you are truly justified by faith. Most Puritan era reformed preachers like Traill said that the law was still valid as a rule of life and that was a test to see if a person was "antinomian" or not. But a lot of modern Christians, even reformed Calvinists will get really upset if you say the law is to be used as a rule of life.

The other question that occurs is if obeying God and living a holy life is essential, then are the reformed ideas that you are truly justified by faith alone really valid or is that just a matter of semantics. And whether you believe that way or not, do you want to condemn a Baxter or a Wright or even a Catholic for mistaking the exact theological meaning of justification - if then you turn around and insist that living a life in pursuit of holiness and endeavoring to do good works is essential, but you will go to hell if you mistakenly label that as part of justification.

For myself, I am inclined to be willing to defend the Reformed explanation as closest to protecting the definition of justification and at the same time not neglecting the importance of good works. But I am not willing to send someone to hell for being wrong on a theological definition.

 

Dangerous? Really? You sure you're not being a wee bit melodramatic?

I've not been dishonest about anything Dave, calm down.

Most of what I know about Wright is from where discussions on this board has directed MY thoughts.

Oh, trust me, I don't hold a candle to you when it comes to being windy.

 

If, and I mean "if", Wright is incorrect on how he explains justification then I don't think you could say that it isn't dangerous. But since it turns out that your views on Wright are actually coming from what you have heard about Wright on the Baptistboard then maybe I'm being unfair to Wright.

It turns out that when you read what everyone else says about Wright about half the writers say he's dangerous. But as you know, 5 minutes on the internet and you can find someone saying Piper is dangerous, MacArthur is dangerous, Doug Wilson is dangerous and so on. So you are going to have to decide for yourself whether he's dangerous, or even maybe correct.

For instance, this to me is God "declaring" something and if he's declaring you "in" what's the big difference between that and declaring you "righteous". And, how does that relate to your conduct from there on and to your justification?

And another question for you. If a reformed person says that one is justified by a declaration based on Christ's work alone, and received by faith. And that a change occurs in such a person that will be evidenced by works, and this for sure will happen. What exactly is your problem with that. I'm not asking you to comment on your perception of my emotional state, or how I view your honesty, but I am asking you to actually engage in a discussion of doctrine.

 

NOT what I said. Don't twist my words. THIS is what I said:

Psalms 1:2