FOUR REASONS PROFESSOR WRIGHT IS WRONG ON JUSTIFICATION

[The Biblicist]

I know. But this is not a "moral righteousness". Men are not justified based on moral acts (or attributed moral acts). God does not look on the saved man as if he were a perfect Law-keeper because the law was never intended to save.

What I am getting at is morality is the illustration of something greater.

It is a moral righteousness but not a legalistic righteousness as no fallen human can produce it. It is a "moral" righteousness because God's nature is a "moral" nature as evidenced in that he "cannot lie" and lying is a moral issue; as evidenced in his creatures which are moral creatures, as evidenced in his "image" which is a moral image (Eph. 4:24; Col. 3:10):

And that you put on the new man, which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness.

And have put on the new man, which is renewed in knowledge after the image of him that created him:

What is "greater" is God's moral holiness (Mt. 5:20; 48). It exceeds the best of men (Mt.5:20) because it equals the best of God (Mt.5:48). It is God's own personal moral righteousness that our new man is imparted and it is God's own personal righteousness manifested in the life of Christ that is imputed to us by faith. It is the only possible righteousness that can vindicate us from the condemnation of the Law. It cannot be produced in or through us as it is perfect, and so it must be given or imputed as fallen man cannot produce it because they have already "come short" of its standard - an entire life of sinless moral perfection.

Rom. 3: 21 But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets;
22 Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ to all and on all them that believe:

Rom. 10:3 For they being ignorant of God’s righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves to the righteousness of God.

 

[JonC]

It is a moral righteousness but not a legalistic righteousness as no fallen human can produce it. It is a "moral" righteousness because God's nature is a "moral" nature as evidenced in that he "cannot lie" and lying is a moral issue; as evidenced in his creatures which are moral creatures, as evidenced in his "image" which is a moral image (Eph. 4:24; Col. 3:10):

And that you put on the new man, which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness.

And have put on the new man, which is renewed in knowledge after the image of him that created him:

What is "greater" is God's moral holiness (Mt. 5:20; 48). It exceeds the best of men (Mt.5:20) because it equals the best of God (Mt.5:48). It is God's own personal moral righteousness that our new man is imparted and it is God's own personal righteousness manifested in the life of Christ that is imputed to us by faith. It is the only possible righteousness that can vindicate us from the condemnation of the Law. It cannot be produced in or through us as it is perfect, and so it must be given or imputed as fallen man cannot produce it because they have already "come short" of its standard - an entire life of sinless moral perfection.

Rom. 3: 21 But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets;
22 Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ to all and on all them that believe:

Rom. 10:3 For they being ignorant of God’s righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves to the righteousness of God.

God's nature extends beyond divine morality. Man's unrighteousness extends beyond human morality. This reconciliation of men to God is greater than an issue of morals. It goes deeper than you are willing to see. Men must be "recreated", given a new heart and a new spirit. Not a new declaration of standing.

 

[The Biblicist]

God's nature extends beyond divine morality.

No one would dispute that,but God's moral nature (holiness) is what requires judgment and justification of sinners not his attributes of immutability, omnscience, omnipresence, eternity, or his divine essence as spirit, etc.

Man's unrighteousness extends beyond human morality.

Yes, but the human nature does not extend beyond the consequences of immorality. All other aspects of humanity have been contaminated and condemned because of immorality. You are trying to disconnect cause from effects or deny the cause for the effects.

This reconciliation of men to God is greater than an issue of morals.

Reconciliation goes no further than the extent of the consequences of immorality. That which is morally perfect needs no reconciliation nor does any other aspect of its nature in addition to its moral nature.

It goes deeper than you are willing to see.

You are confusing the problem (sin = immorality= unrighteousness) with the extent or consequences of the problem otherwise called "total" depravity (total - human nature).

Men must be "recreated", given a new heart and a new spirit. Not a new declaration of standing.

Now you are confusing the legal grounds for reconciliation with the means used to reconcile the damages of sin.

 

[Revmitchell]

In the book of Romans in chapters 3,4,& 9 speak of the works of the law. Galatians 2, 3, speak of the works of the law. Ephesians 2:9 while it does not specifically say works of the law the context of that passage is revealed in verse 11 & 15 which does.

There are other contexts in which "works" is used but when speaking of justification and salvation Paul speaks of "works" on the context of the works of the law.

 

[The Biblicist]

In the book of Romans in chapters 3,4,& 9 speak of the works of the law. Galatians 2, 3, speak of the works of the law. Ephesians 2:9 while it does not specifically say works of the law the context of that passage is revealed in verse 11 & 15 which does.

There are other contexts in which "works" is used but when speaking of justification and salvation Paul speaks of "works" on the context of the works of the law.

I don't know if I understand the point you are making? Could you clarify why you are making these points?

 

[JonC]

No one would dispute that,but God's moral nature (holiness) is what requires judgment and justification of sinners not his attributes of immutability, omnscience, omnipresence, eternity, or his divine essence as spirit, etc.

Yes, but the human nature does not extend beyond the consequences of immorality. All other aspects of humanity have been contaminated and condemned because of immorality. You are trying to disconnect cause from effects or deny the cause for the effects.





Reconciliation goes no further than the extent of the consequences of immorality. That which is morally perfect needs no reconciliation nor does any other aspect of its nature in addition to its moral nature.





You are confusing the problem (sin = immorality= unrighteousness) with the extent or consequences of the problem otherwise called "total" depravity (total - human nature).



Now you are confusing the legal grounds for reconciliation with the means used to reconcile the damages of sin.

That's just it. I don't think it is on "legal" grounds (at least not in terms of the law....or a moral law) that we are justified. If that were the case, then what we would be justified with would be a "perfect law-keeping" and that righteousness would be the imputed righteousness of Christ as "the perfect law-keeper". And, even if Jesus kept the full law by preventing the crucifixion (by not becoming a curse under the Law by hanging on a tree) moral righteousness cannot be imputed.

Instead, I believe that you hit on part of our righteousness, but it is incomplete. Our justification/righteousness is how we stand in the covenant God has given to man. Does it carry moral implications? Yes, certainly. But is it a "moral righteousness"? No, it is far greater than that.

 

[The Biblicist]

That's just it. I don't think it is on "legal" grounds (at least not in terms of the law....or a moral law) that we are justified.

If that is so, then we were not condemned by any legal basis either! However, if we were condemned according to a legal basis then we must be justified by the same legal basis. Indeed, the very term "justified" is a legal term or a legal court action according to a legal standard.

You are making assertions that have no proof, no evidence, no nothing to support them.

 

[JonC]

If that is so, then we were not condemned by any legal basis either! However, if we were condemned according to a legal basis then we must be justified by the same legal basis. Indeed, the very term "justified" is a legal term or a legal court action according to a legal standard.

You are making assertions that have no proof, no evidence, no nothing to support them.

The term righteousness is not necessary a "moral" term. You are.making assertions without proof (and ignoring that the law was given to show our unrighteousness, not to become the basis for it).

 

[JonC]

Here is the beginning of our disagreement. I do not believe that Adam’s right standing with God before the Fall was a “moral” one. Adam’s eating of the fruit was a transgression of law, but not a moral law. This was a covenantal law. Adam was created outside of the Garden. God placed Adam in the Garden, in God’s presence, and there God dwelt with man. And God commanded Adam not to eat of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for on the day they eat of it they will surly die. And when Adam eats from the fruit he transgresses a covenantal law, not a moral law, as Adam’s place in the Garden is secured covenantal, not morally.

This is just as much a covenant as was the Law, which was also not a “moral law”. There are moral aspects of the Law, but the Law itself is not that simplistic. And this covenant carried with it a blessing and a curse. To steal was to be cursed under the Law. But to hang on a tree was also to be cursed under the Law.

God deals with man covenantally. God’s covenant with man has been singular throughout history, yet it is expressed in different ways. God’s covenant with Adam is not divorced with God’s covenant with Abraham, or Moses, or the Church. It is always covenant restoration whereby God dwells with man. For Adam, it was also that the law (the commandment not to eat of the fruit) revealed to Adam his own sinfulness (the lusts of Adam’s heart, in the Garden to be like God).

Righteousness in the Garden is a covenantal. God deals with men through covenants (through God’s own Righteousness), not through morals. Works of the Law, obedience to commands, these things demonstrate the righteousness or unrighteousness of men in comparison to divine righteousness, but they are not that righteousness/unrighteousness itself.

 

[The Biblicist]

The term righteousness is not necessary a "moral" term. You are.making assertions without proof (and ignoring that the law was given to show our unrighteousness, not to become the basis for it).

When Jesus was asked what to do in order to inherit eternal life by both the lawyer and the rich young ruler he pointed them to the law. When Jesus defined sin he did so by use of the law. Jesus made the law both the standard for condemnation and the standard for righteousness - that is an indisputable fact.

Another indisputable fact, is that when Christ defined "works" in connection with the nature of man, starting with the heart of man (intents, thoughts/decisions) and then proceeding to the actions of man he defined it by the law (Mt. 15). However, the holiness of God is best expressed not by a written code but by the expressed life of Christ. It is the life of Christ that provides God's holiness which the law attempts to reveal in written form (Rom. 3:21-22). Therefore, the written law of God has its basis in the holiness of God and it reveals the righteousness of God.

When Paul described the holiness recreated in the heart of men by the new birth, he did so in law terms as he described the new creation as the law not written upon stones but upon the human heart (2 Cor. 3:3) as the expression of the new covenant. When God described the new birth in the Old Testament it was a "new" heart and a "new" Spirit that expressed obedience to his commandments, his law.

God's is called "just" and the "judge" of all the earth and in his only theocratic government on earth that just and judge character is expressed by the law as the standard of what is just and unjust. The weakness of the law is not found in itself as Paul says it is just holy and good but is found in our fallen nature. Our new nature is said to "delight in the law of God" (Rom. 7:22).

When God judges fallen man on the last day the scriptures clearly state that the law will be the standard for that judgment (Rom. 2:11-14) but as it is expressed in the life of Christ (Rom. 2:16). "works" are defined as good or evil, which is the same as "moral" or "immoral" by the law on that day which finds its fullest and best expression in the NATURE OF GOD or HIS HOLINESS.

So your view and Wrights view of "justified" and "justification" is complete nonsense.

 

[JonC]

When Jesus was asked what to do in order to inherit eternal life by both the lawyer and the rich young ruler he pointed them to the law. When Jesus defined sin he did so by use of the law. Jesus made the law both the standard for condemnation and the standard for righteousness - that is an indisputable fact.

Another indisputable fact, is that when Christ defined "works" in connection with the nature of man, starting with the heart of man (intents, thoughts/decisions) and then proceeding to the actions of man he defined it by the law (Mt. 15). However, the holiness of God is best expressed not by a written code but by the expressed life of Christ. It is the life of Christ that provides God's holiness which the law attempts to reveal in written form (Rom. 3:21-22). Therefore, the written law of God has its basis in the holiness of God and it reveals the righteousness of God.

When Paul described the holiness recreated in the heart of men by the new birth, he did so in law terms as he described the new creation as the law not written upon stones but upon the human heart (2 Cor. 3:3) as the expression of the new covenant. When God described the new birth in the Old Testament it was a "new" heart and a "new" Spirit that expressed obedience to his commandments, his law.

God's is called "just" and the "judge" of all the earth and in his only theocratic government on earth that just and judge character is expressed by the law as the standard of what is just and unjust. The weakness of the law is not found in itself as Paul says it is just holy and good but is found in our fallen nature. Our new nature is said to "delight in the law of God" (Rom. 7:22).

When God judges fallen man on the last day the scriptures clearly state that the law will be the standard for that judgment (Rom. 2:11-14) but as it is expressed in the life of Christ (Rom. 2:16). "works" are defined as good or evil, which is the same as "moral" or "immoral" by the law on that day which finds its fullest and best expression in the NATURE OF GOD or HIS HOLINESS.

So your view and Wrights view of "justified" and "justification" is complete nonsense.

You are missing both the reason Jesus spoke in context of the Law and the biblical meaning of righteousness. It was NEVER about merited favor or a works based righteousness. Justification has never been a moral issue. It has always been an issue of faithfulness.

 

[The Biblicist]

Here is the beginning of our disagreement. I do not believe that Adam’s right standing with God before the Fall was a “moral” one.

Let us stop using the term "moral" until we define it. I define "moral" and "immoral" as values that define right and wrong attitudes and behavior between rational beings. God's own holy nature is the absolute standard that defines moral versus immoral and that absolute standard has been revealed to us by His law by which he will judge the "works" (attitude and actions) of all men in the last day. This Law has been best expressed in the ten commandments prior to Christ, but is now best expressed in the life (attitude and actions) of the Person of Jesus Christ.

Adam’s eating of the fruit was a transgression of law, but not a moral law. This was a covenantal law.

"Moral" refers to right values whereas "immoral" refers to wrong values in God's kingdom and God has explicitly given the law to define those values in His kingdom as the law gives written expression to those values found in the "holy" nature of God.

"Covenant" refers to an agreement made between two or more parties where each party has certain defined responsibilities to carry out and if one or more parties fail to carry out their assigned responsibilites then the covenant is violated by that party.

God made no "covenant" with Adam and Eve in the Garden.Instead God sovereignly enacted a law without consent or agreement or advice or input of any kind from Adam or Eve. In essence, God established Himself as final lawgiver, final judge and jury over man and this is what was challenged by Satan and usurped by Adam and Eve by violating of that sovereign enacted law. The violation of that law was in essence the complete overthrow of the rule of God over his own kingdom and thus rejection of God's Laws and God's Person as final lawgiver. That singular violation of divine law was to install man as God or final lawgiver over his own life and is best summed up in the modern cliche "I will do what I will, when I want, where I want and how I want and nobody will rule over me for I am the captain of my own destiny the god of my own life."

Therefore, in the greatest sense of the term it was a "MORAL" revolution against God as it repudiated God's standard of right and wrong in the most absolute sense.

This is just as much a covenant as was the Law, which was also not a “moral law”. There are moral aspects of the Law, but the Law itself is not that simplistic. And this covenant carried with it a blessing and a curse.

Again, "moral" and "immoral" are values that define right and wrong attitudes and behavior among rational beings and God's nature is the absolute standard for determining "right" and "wrong" attitudes and behavior but since God is invisible He has established as the standard to determine "moral" and "immoral" or "right" and "wrong" attitudes and actions His law/commandments/revealed will in written form first summarized and symbolized in the "tree of the knowledge of good and evil" and then further summarized in the ten commandments which is the moral basis for the civil and ceremonial laws established in Israel and the covenant between God and Israel. It is latter reduced to two great commandments, and then further reduced to one word "love." God IS love, God IS holy, God IS righteous and thus the law is merely the expression of God's nature but best visibly expressed in the life lived by Christ.

So, "thou shalt not lie" is equally a moral value as "thou shalt not eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil" because both are expressions of God's will which is rooted in his holy nature as all of his commandments originate from the ultimate moral standard which is His own holy nature.

God deals with man covenantally. God’s covenant with man has been singular throughout history, yet it is expressed in different ways. God’s covenant with Adam is not divorced with God’s covenant with Abraham, or Moses, or the Church. It is always covenant restoration whereby God dwells with man. For Adam, it was also that the law (the commandment not to eat of the fruit) revealed to Adam his own sinfulness (the lusts of Adam’s heart, in the Garden to be like God).

"I am holy be ye therefore holy" is the sum and total of all covenants made by God. All covenants therefore are based upon MORAL VALUES and the absolute standard that determines what is "holy" and what is not "holy" is God's own holy nature which he reveals in THE LAW and then in the LIFE or attitudes and actions of Jesus Christ.

To steal was to be cursed under the Law. But to hang on a tree was also to be cursed under the Law..

In essence, what you are implying is that Christ failed to keep the law but violated the law by the cross and thus was judged as a sinner under the law. If Christ had failed the law prior to the cross then he would have died like any other sinner. However, it is the morally sinless life of Christ that made him fit to BE MADE SIN FOR US BY THE CROSS. Hence, your implication,whether you realize it or not is a repudiation of the substitutionary atonement of Christ for our sins.

 

[The Biblicist]

You are missing both the reason Jesus spoke in context of the Law and the biblical meaning of righteousness. It was NEVER about merited favor or a works based righteousness. Justification has never been a moral issue. It has always been an issue of faithfulness.

Your response is a result of confusing things that differ. The Law was NEVER about meriting favor or obtaining eternal life, but it was ALWAYS about defining God's standard of good and evil. Justification is God as Judge delcaring that standard has not been violated. Condemnation is God as Judge declaring that standard has been violated.

One sin brings condemnation but only a sinless life from birth to death brings justification and since all have sinned, and therefore all have been condemned, this required the incarnation of a human being who from birth to death who lived without sin as a SUBSTITUTE for sinners in order to be justified before God.

 

[Yeshua1]

FOUR REASONS WRIGHT IS WRONG

Professor Wright asserts that Paul in Romans and Galatians is not repudiating a personal moral righteousness by works in order to be justified but is repudiating one must be a covenant keeping Jew in order to be justified before God. He claims that Jews did not keep the Law in order to be justified but in order to identify with the covenant people of God. However, Wright is wrong for four reasons:

1. If justification is not by personal righteousness, where then does the Bible teach it is not if not in Romans and Galations? Wright's denial that they are trying to be justified by works is admission that justification by works is wrong but he has neutered all passages that would teach it is wrong!

2. In Romans and Galatians Paul's use of "works" is always pitted against grace (Rom.3-4; 11:6; Gal. 2:15-21) and yet Wright claims that our works identify us as new covenant people of grace as it identified the Jews as old covenant people of grace. Yet, in Romans and Galatians Paul's concept of works is contrary to grace.

3. Paul's use of "works" with regard to Abraham in Romans and Galatians is PRE-COVENANT as his justification preceded his circumcision which was the sign of the covenant. Hence, in Romans 4:1-5 'works" cannot refer to the covenant but to personal acts of righteousness.

4. The definition of works by Christ demonstrate it refers to a personal moral righteousness or lack thereof (evil works) in Matthew 15:17-18. Christ defines evil works as originating in the heart - the seat of human morality rather than with covenant identification as Wright wrongly supposes. In the discussions between the Lawyer and rich young ruler with Christ there is clear evidence that both Christ and the Jews viewed the law as a moral basis for obtaining righteousness to obtain eternal life. The only problem is that Christ demonstrated the fallen man is incapable of meeting the law's requirements to be justified for eternal life.

Election and salvation under h newCovenant are on an individual basis, not ntional/corporateas under t Old one, an Romans/Galatian NOT writtn to show us how to identify if onewas saved, but how to get saved!.
Wright placed way too much eigh on Judaism of th time, s it was corrupted, an heplced stock ion Jewish sources on par with NT itself!
He denies inerrnacy, penal substitution, false viewson justification, really a wolf in sheeps clothin!

 

[The Biblicist]

With regard to "covenant" salvation it is an unconditional covenant between the Persons of the Trinune Godhead with the Person and work of Jesus Christ as the substitutionary basis for justification of sinners.

There would be no need for justification of sinners if they were not "condemned." It is a divine standard that condemned them which the Bible clearly and undisputably defines as God's Law. If they could be justified from that condemned condition simply by doing away with the divine standard that condemned them then there would be no need for Jesus or a Savior. God is not the author of confusion, if the law is his JUST standard for condemnation then the same standard must be satisfied in order to justify them from that condemnation or else God is the author of confusion.

That standard cannot be satisfied by our life with or without spiritual union with God as condemnation is the result of merely breaking one point and that occurs both before and after regeneration. Hence, that requires a substutionary life completely without sin or there is no reconciliation of sinners with God - meaning with God's holy standard.So any "covenant" righteousness must satisfy the same divine standard and must be individualized or it is meaningless.

 

[Yeshua1]

That's just it. I don't think it is on "legal" grounds (at least not in terms of the law....or a moral law) that we are justified. If that were the case, then what we would be justified with would be a "perfect law-keeping" and that righteousness would be the imputed righteousness of Christ as "the perfect law-keeper". And, even if Jesus kept the full law by preventing the crucifixion (by not becoming a curse under the Law by hanging on a tree) moral righteousness cannot be imputed.

Instead, I believe that you hit on part of our righteousness, but it is incomplete. Our justification/righteousness is how we stand in the covenant God has given to man. Does it carry moral implications? Yes, certainly. But is it a "moral righteousness"? No, it is far greater than that.

We are declred by God to berightious in Christ, a forensic judgement, that God sees us as sants while yet sinners, that is why RCC denies imputed rightiousness, and goes for infused, as wehave to really be a saint to be called one by God, as NT wright seems to hold to also!

 

[JonC]

We are declred by God to berightious in Christ, a forensic judgement, that God sees us as sants while yet sinners, that is why RCC denies imputed rightiousness, and goes for infused, as wehave to really be a saint to be called one by God, as NT wright seems to hold to also!

We are seen as "saints", and "priests". But do you think that God looks upon us as if we had kept the "moral law" or do you think that God looks at us as if we are in a right standing in terms of the new covenant through faith?

 

[JonC]

With regard to "covenant" salvation it is an unconditional covenant between the Persons of the Trinune Godhead with the Person and work of Jesus Christ as the substitutionary basis for justification of sinners.

No, the covenant is with man (it does not make sense that God makes a covenant with Himself - the point is that God Himself has met the conditions of the covenant He has made with man). God told Adam that if he ate of the fruit he would die (Covenant with man), God told Abraham that he would bless him and through him redemption would come (Covenant with man), God told Moses (and Israel) to do those things and live (Covenant with man), and Jesus said "repent and believe", "believe and live", that God loved the world in this way - He sent his only Son that whoever believed would have everlasting life (Covenant with man).

 

[The Biblicist]

The Bible says God IS righteous! Is his righteousness definable or undefinable? If it is undefinable it means nothing to us. If it is definable, then there must be a standard of definition. Paul says that before the incarnation of Christ, that definition was the Law of God as interpreted by the prophets. At the incarnation the law of God became incarnate as the ultimate standard for the written law was the very holy nature of God which for the first time in history could be seen, touched and heard (1 Jn. 1:1-2).

Imparted righteousness and/or infused righteousness (union) does not justify our own lives in God's sight as our own lives are still filled with sin. Hence, neither imparted or infused righteousness can remove our own life out from under the condemnation of the Law of God.

Eventually, imparted righteousness will provide a sinless person AFTER THIS LIFE but not during this life. Infused righteousness does not remove sin from our daily life.

The ONLY possible life that the law or nature of God can declare righteous rather than declare condemned is an absolute sinless life and the ONLY possible way we can obtain that sinless and thus justified life is by imputation through faith in the substitutionary life and death of Christ - there is no other way.

 

[Revmitchell]

That's just it. I don't think it is on "legal" grounds (at least not in terms of the law....or a moral law) that we are justified. If that were the case, then what we would be justified with would be a "perfect law-keeping" and that righteousness would be the imputed righteousness of Christ as "the perfect law-keeper". And, even if Jesus kept the full law by preventing the crucifixion (by not becoming a curse under the Law by hanging on a tree) moral righteousness cannot be imputed.

Instead, I believe that you hit on part of our righteousness, but it is incomplete. Our justification/righteousness is how we stand in the covenant God has given to man. Does it carry moral implications? Yes, certainly. But is it a "moral righteousness"? No, it is far greater than that.

It is on legal ground. In fact we get our very idea of what is legal from God. I believe you are over thinking this to some degree.