Challenge for those who oppose NT Wright's view of justification

[Greektim]

Can you explain his view using/quoting/citing his own words; explain what you disagree with in your own words; and offer a refutation in your own words? Don't just tell me what his view is, show me where he says it. Explain his view to me. I dare you.

I have yet to see someone on here who disagrees w/ Wright actually convey a good understanding of his views. They often submit to others who refute the NPP. In other words, they only read 1 side of the debate. I would love for someone to actually outline what NT Wright believes in his words and what and why someone disagrees with it in their own words rather than from another's.

My money is on no one here actually conversing with NT Wright but just those who have written against him.

Here is a good place to start if you want to understand his view: http://ntwrightpage.com/#lectures

 

[kyredneck]

The link you gave requires waaaay too much research and reading for me to devote to this topic. For one thing the basic premise of NPP is nothing new to Primitive Baptists, what you guys consider to be new is old to the Primitives. They've never disputed the necessity of good works in our temporal salvation. One PB writer that I know of flat out says sola fide folks in general have 'gone to seed with faith alone'. Those that rigidly hold to sola fide should be concerned that the only passage in the Bible that addresses 'faith alone' is Ja 2:24. Concerning Wright, I found this here:

"Wright however does not hold the view that good works contribute to one's salvation but rather that the final judgement is something we can look forward to as a future vindication of God's present declaration of our righteousness. In other words our works are a result of our salvation and the future judgement will show that."

The only modification I would make to that is, 'our works are a result of our having the law written upon our hearts and the future judgment will show that.' Good works should come naturally to the regenerate:

13 for not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified:
14 (for when Gentiles that have not the law do by nature the things of the law, these, not having the law, are the law unto themselves;
15 in that they show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness therewith, and their thoughts one with another accusing or else excusing them); Ro 2

 

[Greektim]

The link you gave requires waaaay too much research and reading for me to devote to this topic. For one thing the basic premise of NPP is nothing new to Primitive Baptists, what you guys consider to be new is old to the Primitives. They've never disputed the necessity of good works in our temporal salvation. One PB writer that I know of flat out says sola fide folks in general have 'gone to seed with faith alone'. Those that rigidly hold to sola fide should be concerned that the only passage in the Bible that addresses 'faith alone' is Ja 2:24. Concerning Wright, I found this here:

"Wright however does not hold the view that good works contribute to one's salvation but rather that the final judgement is something we can look forward to as a future vindication of God's present declaration of our righteousness. In other words our works are a result of our salvation and the future judgement will show that."

The only modification I would make to that is, 'our works are a result of our having the law written upon our hearts and the future judgment will show that.' Good works should come naturally to the regenerate:

13 for not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified:
14 (for when Gentiles that have not the law do by nature the things of the law, these, not having the law, are the law unto themselves;
15 in that they show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness therewith, and their thoughts one with another accusing or else excusing them); Ro 2

I don't think anyone in the NPP camp actually believes it to be "new". The link I gave is to lectures! If you want his book on this, then read Justifcation.

 

[kyredneck]

I don't think anyone in the NPP camp actually believes it to be "new"....

Well, it got the tag 'new' from somewhere. It's 'new' in the same sense as:

In that he saith, A new covenant he hath made the first old....Heb 8:13

NPP is new to those who have known only OPP.

The link I gave is to lectures! If you want his book on this, then read Justifcation.

Thank you.

 

[Revmitchell]

Can you explain his view using/quoting/citing his own words; explain what you disagree with in your own words; and offer a refutation in your own words? Don't just tell me what his view is, show me where he says it. Explain his view to me. I dare you.

I have yet to see someone on here who disagrees w/ Wright actually convey a good understanding of his views. They often submit to others who refute the NPP. In other words, they only read 1 side of the debate. I would love for someone to actually outline what NT Wright believes in his words and what and why someone disagrees with it in their own words rather than from another's.

My money is on no one here actually conversing with NT Wright but just those who have written against him.

Here is a good place to start if you want to understand his view: http://ntwrightpage.com/#lectures

[sigh]

I grow weary of these accusations that no one really understands what hyper-intellectuals think or believe. Kind of reminds me of the political progressive idea that if people actually understood the message they would agree with it. In fact that is quite like the Calvinist mantra as well. What claims like this does is discredit ones intentions in debate. It comes across as more of a debate tactic than it does a desire for genuine discussion. Since your op is less than charitable I would not expect charitable responses if I were you.

Having said all of that here are my issues with it. First, I have a problem with the idea that hyper-intellectuals come along and suggest that everyone else, all these past years, have failed to understand this truth and now "let me straiten you out on this". Their mistake was placing the word "New" in front of it. That will always set people back.

However, the primary issue here is that Wright and Dunn and a few others suggest that everyone has over emphasized (in Romans) a purely salvation message ("a system of salvation") and failed to understand the true focus of Paul's message, that being "the gospel, for Paul, is ‘Jesus Christ is Lord’."

Wright is wrong.

He is wrong because it is a blatantly false accusation that the church has throughout history focused only on a system of salvation in Romans. What has been the actual teaching and practice has been that within Romans there most certainly is a system of salvation (as Wright himself admits) but that far more than that is also taught. It is my position that the church has had a balanced view on Romans but chooses to emphasize different lines of thought in Romans when it is appropriate.

What Wright does is over emphasize what he wants to focus on which is " ‘Jesus Christ is Lord’." while basically ignoring any other idea in Romans. At least that is how he comes across. I believe his accusations of what the church has believed and focused on about Romans is unfounded.

 

[Greektim]

[sigh]

I grow weary of these accusations that no one really understands what hyper-intellectuals think or believe. Kind of reminds me of the political progressive idea that if people actually understood the message they would agree with it. In fact that is quite like the Calvinist mantra as well. What claims like this does is discredit ones intentions in debate. It comes across as more of a debate tactic than it does a desire for genuine discussion. Since your op is less than charitable I would not expect charitable responses if I were you.

Having said all of that here are my issues with it. First, I have a problem with the idea that hyper-intellectuals come along and suggest that everyone else, all these past years, have failed to understand this truth and now "let me straiten you out on this". Their mistake was placing the word "New" in front of it. That will always set people back.

However, the primary issue here is that Wright and Dunn and a few others suggest that everyone has over emphasized (in Romans) a purely salvation message ("a system of salvation") and failed to understand the true focus of Paul's message, that being "the gospel, for Paul, is ‘Jesus Christ is Lord’."

Wright is wrong.

He is wrong because it is a blatantly false accusation that the church has throughout history focused only on a system of salvation in Romans. What has been the actual teaching and practice has been that within Romans there most certainly is a system of salvation (as Wright himself admits) but that far more than that is also taught. It is my position that the church has had a balanced view on Romans but chooses to emphasize different lines of thought in Romans when it is appropriate.

What Wright does is over emphasize what he wants to focus on which is " ‘Jesus Christ is Lord’." while basically ignoring any other idea in Romans. At least that is how he comes across. I believe his accusations of what the church has believed and focused on about Romans is unfounded.

Couple things: I don't believe the NPP people put the word "new" in front of it. They talk about this as if they are rediscovering something that was lost. That brings me to the second point, they don't accuse the church throughout history as being wrong, just the church from the time of the reformation that overcame the dominant force that was the RCC. That has always been known.

At least you have shown that you know a small part of what Wright believes about Paul, in this case Paul's gospel.

As for your opening, get over it. I am not the least bit concerned if Wright's views convert you. I'm not totally convinced myself. I am just sick of his views getting mistreated. I want people to either understand him or stop lobbing stones at him.

 

[Revmitchell]

Couple things: I don't believe the NPP people put the word "new" in front of it. They talk about this as if they are rediscovering something that was lost. That brings me to the second point, they don't accuse the church throughout history as being wrong, just the church from the time of the reformation that overcame the dominant force that was the RCC. That has always been known.

At least you have shown that you know a small part of what Wright believes about Paul, in this case Paul's gospel.

As for your opening, get over it. I am not the least bit concerned if Wright's views convert you. I'm not totally convinced myself. I am just sick of his views getting mistreated. I want people to either understand him or stop lobbing stones at him.

Oh they understand him. Of course he is not the originator of the NPP. But he certainly espouses it enough. And it has not always been known because Wright, Dunn, and Saunders (the latter two being liberal) have got it wrong. They intentionally emphasize what they want people to focus on and de-emphasize the other. The fact is both sides are their and neither should be emphasized except in specific contexts. And the word "New" is always attached to it without any objection from any of them.



And I have not seen anyone post anything about this lately. Not sure what all the hub bub is about.

 

[kyredneck]

[sigh]

I grow weary of these accusations.....

Lol, but you never grow weary of making them do you? Man, you're a hoot!

 

[Yeshua1]

Couple things: I don't believe the NPP people put the word "new" in front of it. They talk about this as if they are rediscovering something that was lost. That brings me to the second point, they don't accuse the church throughout history as being wrong, just the church from the time of the reformation that overcame the dominant force that was the RCC. That has always been known.

At least you have shown that you know a small part of what Wright believes about Paul, in this case Paul's gospel.

As for your opening, get over it. I am not the least bit concerned if Wright's views convert you. I'm not totally convinced myself. I am just sick of his views getting mistreated. I want people to either understand him or stop lobbing stones at him.

NT Wrihgt redefines what exactly pauline justification meant per the Apsotle in Romans/Galations, correct?

that the reformers and all since Paul basically misunderstood his arguement of saved by grace alone, thru faith alone?

That he saw it as invoving the community of isreal expanding and incorporating the gentiles, that good works and batist in Jesus requirements to evidence citizenship in the community of faith, correct?

JUST the fact that he holds that water baptism i the "entry point" into the community of faith shows that HE is the one who misunderstood Paul!

 

[Greektim]

NT Wrihgt redefines what exactly pauline justification meant per the Apsotle in Romans/Galations, correct? Not even close

that the reformers and all since Paul basically misunderstood his arguement of saved by grace alone, thru faith alone? No, just the reformers and after

That he saw it as invoving the community of isreal expanding and incorporating the gentiles, that good works and batist in Jesus requirements to evidence citizenship in the community of faith, correct? not exactly

JUST the fact that he holds that water baptism i the "entry point" into the community of faith shows that HE is the one who misunderstood Paul! see below

So you failed the challenge b/c you didn't provide anything that said what you accused. And he challenges the post-reformation understanding of justification. But he affirms it is by faith alone. However, he also sees a future element that undoubtedly involves works as the vindication of one's faith. Something many believe, unless you are into the easy believism crowd. I think he would see Israel as being redefined in and around Jesus, Jesus being best understood in the narrative of Israel and the church being understood in the narrative of Jesus' fulfilling Israel's mission. And justification is more concerned with covenant membership than entrance. I'm not sure his views on baptism, but many would agree that just as all covenants have signs, baptism is like circumcision as an covenantal signature for the new covenant. If you understand baptism to serve that purpose, then I don't think it is a misunderstanding at all.

 

[Revmitchell]

And justification is more concerned with covenant membership than entrance.

Yea, its not but a suppose people have a right make stuff up as they go. Over emphasizing one over the other is absurd.

 

[OldRegular]

I like the following and I don't have to read a windy writer!

Romans 3:24-26
24. Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:
25. Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;
26. To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.

 

[Yeshua1]

I like the following and I don't have to read a windy writer!

Romans 3:24-26
24. Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:
25. Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;
26. To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.

NT Wright would say that you are reading too much into that passage, for we must be proven and shown by God to be saved by the manner of life we lived after salvation, that we need to be really part of the community of faith!

he also denies inerrancy of the bible, so howcan we be sure that he understands paul bette than all the reformers and others since that time?