N.T. Wright and Justification

[Alan Gross]

Ye see that by works a man is justified, and not only by faith."

...and if you're sticking with the namby-pamby 'explanation' that James was referring to a justification before men, this justification is BEFORE CHRIST, NOT MEN"

"...the works that James was talking about in his epistle:

27 Pure religion and undefiled before our God and Father is this, to visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep oneself unspotted from the world. Ja 1
15 If a brother or sister be naked and in lack of daily food,
16 and one of you say unto them, Go in peace, be ye warmed and filled; and yet ye give them not the things needful to the body; what doth it profit? Ja 2

...are the same works we're all going to be judged by.

The just:

The unjust:

There is no conflict between James and Paul
on the matter of justification by faith.

Paul used the Greek word "dikaioo"
to mean "to declare, pronounce, one to be just, righteous,
or such as he ought to be,"

while James used the same word
to mean "to show, exhibit, evince, one to be righteous
or such as he ought to be."

commentaries on Reformed

I wasn't using a commentary on Reformed anything.

I am not Reformed anything.

I suppose you miss the gist of "in the spirit not in the letter".

Yep. Not that you explained yourself on it.

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

 

[JonC]

@JonC. I don't know why you want to go off in this direction. Ephesians 2:8-9 is saying salvation. That closes the argument that Ky brought up.

I am dealing with the Wright comments.

You asked for a difference between the reformed traditional view and what Wright was saying.

This is one very important difference.

Wright points out that Paul's use of justification is very narrow and specific.

You, however, interchange salvation and justification.


For example, being saved by faith alone is not the same as being justified by faith alone because salvation and justification is not the same thing.

The reason I am going off in this direction is because it is exactly the issue Wright is discussing in regards to an error.

And it is very important in understanding what Paul is talking about with justification.

Yes...only the saved are justified. But this does not negate the significance and meaning of justification. We cannot substitute one word for the other.

 

[DaveXR650]

You, however, interchange salvation and justification.


For example, being saved by faith alone is not the same as being justified by faith alone because salvation and justification is not the same thing.

The reason I am going off in this direction is because it is exactly the issue Wright is discussing in regards to an error.

And it is very important in understanding what Paul is talking about with justification.

Yes...only the saved are justified. But this does not negate the significance and meaning of justification. We cannot substitute one word for the other.

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.

 

[DaveXR650]

And, in no way am I derailing this thread. N.T. Wright actually contributed to my conclusions on 'justification' years ago.

Perhaps you think scripture should not be important in these debates, only commentaries of other men's opinions?

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]

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.

Wright is saying that justification, while not secondary, is also not the center of the gospel (the center is Christ and the kingdom).


Wright agrees with McGrath - " The doctrine of justification has come to develop a meaning quite independent of it's biblical origins, and concerns the means by which man's relationship to God is established. The church has chosen to subsume it's discussion of the reconciliation of man under the aegis of justification, thereby giving the concept an emphasis quite absent from the New Testament."


Wright's argument is that justification is a covenant word and a legal word which cannot be understood apart from eschatology.

God declares men justified (legal) based on their position in Christ (covenant) and this points to a final state (eschatological).

 

[Piper]

How would you define "righteous"?

I have heard several ideas, so maybe that deserves addressing - if anything for those who may pass by exploring our faith.

I have read some describe "righteous" as perfectly obeying the Mosaic Law, perfectly obeying God's moral law (which I would assume is broader), and this attributed to us based on Christ's obedience.

I have also seen it described it by others in N.T. Wrights terms (as placed "in Christ", clothed in His righteousness, belonging to God's covenant people or "the elect").

And I have seen it described as an actual change, as God making us righteous (removing our old heart, giving us a new one, putting His Spirit in us).

I've probably ran into a few others, but I think you see what I mean. We need to decide what this means (declared, positional, ontological?).

I would define Righteousness like this:
(You changed my word from righteousness to righteous. I'll stick to what I said.)

"God's righteousness consists in his unswerving commitment to do what is right."

Since I a totally agree with John Piper in "The Future of Justification," and since he is my friend, I will quote him.

p63-64
"It is not very satisfying to say that God's righteousness is his commitment to do what is right, because it leaves the term 'right' undefined. We don't feel like we have gained very much in defining 'righteousness' if we use the word 'right' to define it. To be sure, it is not an insignificant thing to say to a child , 'God is the kind of person who always knows and loves and does what is right.' That is a wise and true thing to say. But someday that child is going to become a teenager and ask, 'How does God decide what is right? Who tells God what is right? Is there a book of laws or rules that God has to obey?'

Answering those questions gets at the deeper meaning of righteousness. What is the 'right' to which God is unswervingly committed?

The answer is that there is no book of laws or rules that God consults to know what is right.

He wrote the book. What we find therefore in the Old Testament and in Paul is that God defines 'right' in terms of himself. There is no other standard to consult that his own infinitely worthy being. Thus, what is right, most ultimately, is what upholds the value and honor of God-what esteems and honors God's glory.

The reasoning goes like this: The ultimate value in the universe is God- the whole panorama of all his perfections. Another name for this is God's holiness (viewed as the intrinsic and infinite worth of his perfect beauty) or God's glory (viewed as the out-streaming manifestation of that beauty). Therefore, 'right' must be ultimately defines in relation to the ultimate value, the holiness or the glory of God - this is the highest standard for 'right' in the universe. Therefore, what is right is what upholds in proper proportion the value of what is infinitely valuable, namely, God. 'Right' actions are those that flow from a proper esteem for God's glory and that uphold his glory as the most valuable reality there is. That means that the essence of the righteousness of God is his unwavering faithfulness to uphold the glory of his name. And human righteousness is the same: the unwavering faithfulness to uphold the glory of God."

 

[JonC]

I would define Righteousness like this:
(You changed my word from righteousness to righteous. I'll stick to what I said.)

"God's righteousness consists in his unswerving commitment to do what is right."

Since I a totally agree with John Piper in "The Future of Justification," and since he is my friend, I will quote him.

p63-64
"It is not very satisfying to say that God's righteousness is his commitment to do what is right, because it leaves the term 'right' undefined. We don't feel like we have gained very much in defining 'righteousness' if we use the word 'right' to define it. To be sure, it is not an insignificant thing to say to a child , 'God is the kind of person who always knows and loves and does what is right.' That is a wise and true thing to say. But someday that child is going to become a teenager and ask, 'How does God decide what is right? Who tells God what is right? Is there a book of laws or rules that God has to obey?'

Answering those questions gets at the deeper meaning of righteousness. What is the 'right' to which God is unswervingly committed?

What do you mean "to do what is right" and how is this applied to men?

 

[DaveXR650]

@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.

 

[JonC]

@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. ...

Reading McGrath (and Wright) it is interesting that you hit on a key issue.

The reason justification came to be understood in the context of reconciliation and establishing man's relationship with God is Augustine combating the Pelagian heresy. This issue bled into and influenced the traditional reformed (and evangelical) view of justification.

 

[Piper]

What do you mean "to do what is right" and how is this applied to men?

I edited my post to explain that.

 

[JonC]

I edited my post to explain that.

Thank you. I read it.

How do you believe that God's righteousness is manifested by the law and apart from the law?

 

[Piper]

Thank you. I read it.

How do you believe that God's righteousness is manifested by the law and apart from the law?

Sounds like a leading question. Tell me where you are going with the question. What are you trying to establish?

 

[JonC]

Sounds like a leading question. Tell me where you are going with the question. What are you trying to establish?

It isn't a leading question.

Reading your post I can understand how God's law was a manifestation of His righteousness.

But I am not sure how you view God's righteousness manifested apart from the law.

 

[DaveXR650]

But I am not sure how you view God's righteousness manifested apart from the law.

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.

 

[Piper]

It isn't a leading question.

Reading your post I can understand how God's law was a manifestation of His righteousness.

But I am not sure how you view God's righteousness manifested apart from the law.

A Commentary on these verses? I'll try and write something up, probably won't be till tomorrow. I can't do it off the top of my head. My memory is not as good as when I was 30.

21 But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it— 22 the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction: 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, 25 whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God's righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins. 26 It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.

 

[JonC]

A Commentary on these verses? I'll try and write something up, probably won't be till tomorrow. I can't do it off the top of my head. My memory is not as good as when I was 30.

21 But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it— 22 the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction: 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, 25 whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God's righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins. 26 It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.

This was the passage I had in mind.

I think we know what the righteousness of God is manifested in the law (it was one of perfect obedience, and it ended up demonstrating not only a requirement but also that we couldn't meet that requirement).

Given your definition of justification, I am curious how you think God's righteousness is manifested apart from the law.

 

[Piper]

Here Piper helps me again.


"Look at Romans 3:21, “But now apart from the law the righteousness of God has been manifested, being witnessed by the law and the Prophets.” Here Paul makes a major turn in his letter. Since Romans 1:18 he has been showing how we don’t have righteousness, and therefore we are under sin and judgment and destined for final wrath and fury. The mouth of the whole world is stopped and everyone is accountable and without excuse.

The law of God has met with the rebellion of man; and the result is condemnation, not justification. Nobody gets right with God through the performances of the law. That’s what verse 20 says: “By the works of the law no flesh will be justified in his sight.” So that’s the end of moral boldness — it seems. No one is righteous — no mothers, no fathers, no teenagers, no children. And no one can get right with God by the works of the law.

But now comes this major turn in the letter. Verses 21–22: “But now apart from the law the righteousness of God has been manifested, being witnessed by the law and the Prophets, even the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all those who believe.” Aha! So there is a divine righteousness — a God-sent, God-given righteousness, that is not through the works of the law, but (verse 22 says) through faith in Jesus Christ, for all who believe.

In other words, God’s solution to the problem of sin and condemnation in Romans 1:18–3:20 is for God to send his Son Jesus to die for sin (verse 24 ) and to give us his own righteousness if we will trust in his Son. This is called justification by faith: God’s reckoning his righteousness as our righteousness if we will trust in his Son."

The Demonstration of God’s Righteousness

 

[kyredneck]

That's why Wright is dangerous.

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

And it also shows that you have not been honest in what you just said.

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

Why in the world were you reading Wright, and being influenced by him

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

and then coming on here and bloviating about how you only use scripture.

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

 

[DaveXR650]

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

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.

He insists that justification is not forgiveness but rather God's declaration of those who have been forgiven and are "in Christ".

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.

 

[kyredneck]

it turns out that your views on Wright are actually coming from what you have heard about Wright

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

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

Psalms 1:2