Any hear Into NT Wright And the "new pauline perspective?"

[Greektim]

You'd be hard pressed to find evidence to convince me that Piper preaches a works justification.

Then read his sermon on Romans 2:13. He clarifies that justification there is future justification at the final judgment. Doers of the law are vindicated because their present justification has not only given them a right standing before God but that God equips the believer with the necessary obedience required for that final vindication.

Here is how G. K. Beale put it:

Justification and judgment are grounded in the believer's union with Christ, the former coming by faith, and the latter being an evaluation of works that necessarily arise from the true faith-union with Christ and by means of the Spirit's empowerment.

He went on to cite Piper, Future of Justification, 184-186 specifically w/ Rom. 2:13 in mind. So I'm not the only one seeing this from scholars like Piper and Snodgrass. I think this view is very compatible w/ Wright's view of future justification.

 

[mont974x4]

Thanks for the link. I believe you have seriously misunderstood Piper on this. From the link you shared:

But is Romans 2:13b a hypothetical statement? When Paul says, "Not the hearers of the Law are just before God, but the doers of the Law will be justified," does he really mean: They would be justified if there were any, but there aren't any "doers of the law." Or to put it another way, Does "doers of the Law" refer to sinless, perfect law-keepers? Could Paul call a person a "doer of the law" who sins, but who loves God and loves the law and hates his own sins and confesses them and casts himself on the mercy of God revealed in the law itself?

I think he could. And I think he does. So I believe verse 13 means: Not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the ones who will be acquitted at the last judgment will be those who 1) love God's law, and 2) depend on his help to live according to the truth that they have, and 3) trust God for his mercy when they stumble.

Hearing the Gospel Is Essential for Salvation

But now listen carefully, lest you misunderstand: Apart from the preaching of the Gospel, and the awakening work of the Holy Spirit that leads to faith in Christ, nobody is saved today* in this way. That's Paul's point in these first two-and-a-half chapters of Romans. The reason for this - the reason no one is saved in this way, apart from hearing the gospel of Christ - is that everyone without Christ "suppresses the truth in unrighteousness" (Romans 1:18). Everyone hardens his heart against repentance (Romans 2:5).

In other words, you might ask me (as some of you have), "Theoretically, could people be saved today who haven't heard of Christ, if they were "doers of the law" the way you described (namely, people who 1) love God's law, and 2) depend on God's help to live according to the truth that they have, and 3) trust God for his mercy when they stumble)? And I would answer, "Yes, theoretically they would be saved" (and God would cover their sins by the blood of Christ, similar to the way he did for the saints in the Old Testament), but it never happens. The reason we need aggressive, loving evangelization among all the peoples of the world is because people everywhere suppress the truth and will not yield to God without the sovereign work of the Holy Spirit in their lives (Romans 1:18), and this Spirit works savingly only through the Gospel of Christ crucified and risen. God has shut all men up in disobedience (Romans 11:32) so that his Son, Jesus Christ, will be the conscious Object of faith among all the peoples (see Acts 4:12; Romans 10:13-15). (See further support in John Piper, Let the Nations Be Glad [Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1993], pp. 131-166.)

http://www.desiringgod.org/resource-library/sermons/there-is-no-partiality-with-god-part-2

 

[mont974x4]

from the same sermon.

And what does it mean there? Verse 7 says that, at the judgment, those who "by perseverance in doing good seek for glory and honor and immortality, [will receive] eternal life." So here in this very context, Paul is teaching that eternal life (which is essentially the same as being justified or acquitted at the last judgment) is given only to those who have been so transformed by faith that they "persevere in doing good" (see sermon on Romans 2:6-11, December 7, 1998, "The Final Divide, Part Two"). But if this was his teaching in verses 6-10 (which, interestingly, John Stott agrees with, Romans, p. 84), then that is probably his teaching in verse 13.

For all these reasons I take Romans 2:13 as a simple statement of actual fact, "Doers of the law will be justified."

 

[Greektim]

from the same sermon.

And what does it mean there? Verse 7 says that, at the judgment, those who "by perseverance in doing good seek for glory and honor and immortality, [will receive] eternal life." So here in this very context, Paul is teaching that eternal life (which is essentially the same as being justified or acquitted at the last judgment) is given only to those who have been so transformed by faith that they "persevere in doing good" (see sermon on Romans 2:6-11, December 7, 1998, "The Final Divide, Part Two"). But if this was his teaching in verses 6-10 (which, interestingly, John Stott agrees with, Romans, p. 84), then that is probably his teaching in verse 13.

For all these reasons I take Romans 2:13 as a simple statement of actual fact, "Doers of the law will be justified."

Yeah... everything quoted seems to make my point. Maybe underline what you think contradicts. Otherwise, he is pretty plain in this following quote on this sermon:

Faith is required by the Law, and faith is the sole means of union with Christ whose righteousness vindicates us at the judgment. All the other obedience that comes from faith is the fruit of that union, not the means of it. So Romans 2:13b is not a contradiction of Paul's teaching of justification by faith alone.

Also, I'd like to read a bit of what Piper says in his book on Rom 2:13 since Beale is seeing what I'm saying. Now I will admit that Piper avoids using the terminology "basis" w/ works and justification, and rightly so. But he does seem to beat around the bush enough to imply that works and future judgment go hand in hand. He also implies that future judgment is a future vindication which is based first and foremost on present justification.

 

[thomas15]

Thomas15, thinking out loud. "Why do some who claim to be Baptist have such a great affection for the theologians of the COE such as Packer, Stott and Wright? Do they share the COE views of the fundamentals of the faith, Biblical authority, the communion table, the person of Christ, infant baptism and so forth? Do they have a deep appreciation for the direction the COE is heading with respect to the social gospel?"

Thomas15 will admit to one thing, he never cared for Piper until he read his reaction to Wright.

 

[Greektim]

Thomas15, thinking out loud. "Why do some who claim to be Baptist have such a great affection for the theologians of the COE such as Packer, Stott and Wright? Do they share the COE views of the fundamentals of the faith, Biblical authority, the communion table, the person of Christ, infant baptism and so forth? Do they have a deep appreciation for the direction the COE is heading with respect to the social gospel?"

Thomas15 will admit to one thing, he never cared for Piper until he read his reaction to Wright.

Denominations matter little to me when compared to someone's theology and the articulation of said theology. Stott, Wright, and Wright (you didn't mention Christorpher Wright, Stott's protege) are men w/ an amazing grasp of the Word. I don't always agree with them, but I don't always agree w/ Baptists either. If you've never read them, then you would have difficulty knowing what I'm talking about. But those guys are deep thinkers and very influential. Baptists would do well to emulate such a level of cogency and depth in their writings (including SS material).

 

[quantumfaith]

Denominations matter little to me when compared to someone's theology and the articulation of said theology. Stott, Wright, and Wright (you didn't mention Christorpher Wright, Stott's protege) are men w/ an amazing grasp of the Word. I don't always agree with them, but I don't always agree w/ Baptists either. If you've never read them, then you would have difficulty knowing what I'm talking about. But those guys are deep thinkers and very influential. Baptists would do well to emulate such a level of cogency and depth in their writings (including SS material).

:thumbs::applause::applause:

I also really enjoy Christopher JH Wright.

 

[thomas15]

.... But those guys are deep thinkers and very influential. Baptists would do well to emulate such a level of cogency and depth in their writings (including SS material).

Meaning Baptists should be more like the COE or the COE more like Baptists?

 

[Greektim]

Meaning Baptists should be more like the COE or the COE more like Baptists?

We should all strive to be better thinkers... not a denominational issue. It just happens that the COE has come good thinkers.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

We should all strive to be better thinkers... not a denominational issue. It just happens that the COE has come good thinkers.

In my world, COE means Corps of Engineers (US Army)
sooooo...... nice if you's spell it out on occasion:smilewinkgrin:.

 

[quantumfaith]

We should all strive to be better thinkers... not a denominational issue. It just happens that the COE has come good thinkers.

In high school and college Christian teenagers are intellectually assaulted with every manner of non-Christian worldview coupled with an overwhelming relativism. If parents are not intellectually engaged with their faith and do not have sound arguments for Christian theism and good answers to their children’s questions, then we are in real danger of losing our youth. It’s no longer enough to teach our children simply Bible stories; they need doctrine and apologetics. It’s hard to understand how people today can risk parenthood without having studied apologetics.

Unfortunately, our churches have also largely dropped the ball in this area. It’s insufficient for youth groups and Sunday school classes to focus on entertainment and simpering devotional thoughts. We’ve got to train our kids for war. We dare not send them out to public high school and university armed with rubber swords and plastic armor. The time for playing games is past. – William Lane Craig

 

[Greektim]

In my world, COE means Corps of Engineers (US Army)
sooooo...... nice if you's spell it out on occasion:smilewinkgrin:.

Church of England

 

[kyredneck]

Wow... Wright but also scholars like Carson and Piper who would speak of a future justification via works, Wright points to passages such as Rom. 2:13 that seem to teach justification through works not faith. ....

Good post GT. Many fail to see that works is all about one's nature within, which comes from the supernatural birth from above that writes the law upon the heart. This is exactly where James is coming from when he writes:

17 Even so faith, if it have not works, is dead in itself.
18 Yea, a man will say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: show me thy faith apart from thy works, and I by my works will show thee my faith. Ja 2

Those that hold strictly to 'sola fide' should be concerned that the only passage to be found that makes mention of 'faith alone' is this one:

24 Ye see that by works a man is justified, and not only by faith. Ja 2

http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?p=1793086#post1793086

http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=77641

 

[thomas15]

We should all strive to be better thinkers... not a denominational issue. It just happens that the COE has come good thinkers.

Should we then just chalk it up to bad karma that the big thinkers of the COE are passengers on a sinking ship?

 

[Ryan.Samples]

Shouldn't this discussion be in the "other denoms" forum? The NPP impacts more than just Baptists and, if people follow the posting rules then they may not be chiming in here because they aren't Baptists. That of course assumes people follow the posting rules............. :smilewinkgrin:

 

[MorseOp]

Shouldn't this discussion be in the "other denoms" forum? The NPP impacts more than just Baptists and, if people follow the posting rules then they may not be chiming in here because they aren't Baptists. That of course assumes people follow the posting rules............. :smilewinkgrin:

That is a very good point. NPP theology is not a Baptist distinctive. It emerged from the writings of liberal theologian E.P. Sanders (Union Theological Seminary; need I say more?) and adopted by N.T. Wright, an Anglican. It has close ties to Federal Vision theology (often called the pastoral aspect of the NPP), a Presbyterian concoction.

 

[Greektim]

Should we then just chalk it up to bad karma that the big thinkers of the COE are passengers on a sinking ship?

I'm sure there is a lot of your tongue firmly pressed to your inner cheek.

However, I don't really even understand your point.

 

[Bob Alkire]

That is a very good point. NPP theology is not a Baptist distinctive. It emerged from the writings of liberal theologian E.P. Sanders (Union Theological Seminary; need I say more?) and adopted by N.T. Wright, an Anglican. It has close ties to Federal Vision theology (often called the pastoral aspect of the NPP), a Presbyterian concoction.

I have to agree with you, from my reading and study.

 

[Greektim]

I have to agree with you, from my reading and study.

I'm not sure that anyone here is arguing that this is a baptist distinctive. It is no more distinctive than reformed theology is to baptist theology. So there is no reason to relocate it to another part of the BB. Since there are baptist who believe the so called NPP (hard to call it new when it has been discussed for 30+ years now), a dialogue in this part of the forum is appropriate. And for no other reasons, it introduces names and views to baptists who are not normally accustomed to these discussions and purview.

 

[thomas15]

I'm sure there is a lot of your tongue firmly pressed to your inner cheek.

However, I don't really even understand your point.

For no charge I will help you out. Wright, being a big thinker, has his thoughts focused so high on the plane of human thought that he hasn't noticed that the organism that signs his regular weekly paycheck is drifting out on the open seas, has struck a figurative iceberg and is taking on lots of spiritual water.

Be a pal and before it's too late, send Bishop Wright an email letting him know that his beloved church is sinking in some kind of moral swamp. That is of course unless you agree with the direction the COE, the highly influential Bishop Wrights denomination is headed.