N.T. Wright and Justification

[JonC]

Please, please, please stop with your failed attempts to read my mind.

I do not "pretend" Wright rejects aspects of salvation.

Please answer the question.

"What does the washing of regeneration accomplish if God simply declares people righteous?"

I already answered. AND you responded to my answer.

Justification is different from forgiveness, from sanctification, from regeneration. It is an important aspect of salvation, but when we just use it as a synonym for another aspect of salvation we make it meaningless.

Justification is a declaration of what has been accomplished. It is not divorced from forgiveness, or regeneration, or salvation....but it has its own meaning.

You are also ignoring Wright's explanation that justification is a declaration (a legal declaration) of having been put in a right state (not just a declaration).

 

[Van]

I already answered. AND you responded to my answer.

Justification is different from forgiveness, from sanctification, from regeneration. It is an important aspect of salvation, but when we just use it as a synonym for another aspect of salvation we make it meaningless.

Justification is a declaration of what has been accomplished. It is not divorced from forgiveness, or regeneration, or salvation....but it has its own meaning.

Here we have another new definition of "justification."

Rom 4:25
He who was delivered over because of our wrongdoings, and was raised because of our justification. ​

If we use this bogus definition, we get.'...was raised because of our declaration of justification.. Obviously not the idea.

Romans 5:16 "...the free gift arose from many transgressions resulting in justification."​

If we use this bogus definition we get "...the free gift arose from many transgressions resulting in our declaration of justification. Again, not the idea.

Rom 5:18
So then, as through one offense the result was condemnation to all mankind, so also through one act of righteousness the result was justification of life to all mankind.​

If we use the bogus definition we get "...the result was declaration of justification of life to all mankind. Once again, not the idea.

The noun is derived from the verb "justify" and actually refers to the act or process of justifying something. Justification refers to a changed status, and in this context, from an unrighteous sinful state to a state of righteousness. Christ's sacrificial death provides the means for our justification, our reconciliation, our salvation. As sinners, we must be justified, made righteous in order to be reconciled to God, and once reconciled, we are saved from the wrath which would have otherwise been applied to us.

The result of the removal of our sin burden is justification, enabling reconciliation, resulting in salvation.

An interesting sidelight is Paul's use of the preposition "dia" (literally meaning into) but used in these three verses to show instrumentality, the reason for which something is done.

Christ was raised to facilitate our justification (being made righreous) based on God crediting our faith as righteousness.
The free gift provides the means of our justification (being made righteous) based on God crediting our faith as righteousness.
Christ's righteous act of sacrifice provides the means of justification (being made righteous and spiritually alive) of life for all mankind.

 

[JonC]

Here we have another new definition of "justification."

Rom 4:25
He who was delivered over because of our wrongdoings, and was raised because of our justification. ​

If we use this bogus definition, we get.'...was raised because of our declaration of justification.. Obviously not the idea.

Romans 5:16 "...the free gift arose from many transgressions resulting in justification."​

If we use this bogus definition we get "...the free gift arose from many transgressions resulting in our declaration of justification. Again, not the idea.

Rom 5:18
So then, as through one offense the result was condemnation to all mankind, so also through one act of righteousness the result was justification of life to all mankind.​

If we use the bogus definition we get "...the result was declaration of justification of life to all mankind. Once again, not the idea.

The noun is derived from the verb "justify" and actually refers to the act or process of justifying something. Justification refers to a changed status, and in this context, from an unrighteous sinful state to a state of righteousness. Christ's sacrificial death provides the means for our justification, our reconciliation, our salvation. As sinners, we must be justified, made righteous in order to be reconciled to God, and once reconciled, we are saved from the wrath which would have otherwise been applied to us.

The result of the removal of our sin burden is justification, enabling reconciliation, resulting in salvation.

An interesting sidelight is Paul's use of the preposition "dia" (literally meaning into) but used in these three verses to show instrumentality, the reason for which something is done.

Christ was raised to facilitate our justification (being made righreous) based on God crediting our faith as righteousness.
The free gift provides the means of our justification (being made righteous) based on God crediting our faith as righteousness.
Christ's righteous act of sacrifice provides the means of justification (being made righteous and spiritually alive) of life for all mankind.

But those are not definitions of justification (the passages you provide do not define justification).

And you are only dealing with half of Wright's definition (you are only dealing with God declaring man justified).

As an example, if I were to describe an airplane as an Airbus you would be saying that is nonsense because buses drive on a highway - completely ignoring the air part.

Wright offered a definition that includes two aspects - a declaration and being placed in Christ.

I am not saying he is correct BUT you can't argue he isn't without dealing with the whole definition.

 

[Van]

SNIP
And you are only dealing with half of Wright's definition (you are only dealing with God declaring man justified).
SNIP
Wright offered a definition that includes two aspects - a declaration and being placed in Christ.

I am not saying he is correct BUT you can't argue he isn't without dealing with the whole definition.

Too bad you did not provide the quote where justification means "being placed in Christ."

Here is the OP quote:

, “Within this context, ‘justification,’ as seen in 3:24-26, means that those who believe in Jesus Christ are declared to be members of the true covenant family..."

Declared to be members is not the same as being placed into Christ's spiritual body.

To repeat once again the obvious, justification refers to the act or process of being made righteous by the washing of regeneration the circumcision of Christ.

 

[JonC]

Too bad you did not provide the quote where justification means "being placed in Christ."

Here is the OP quote:


Declared to be members is not the same as being placed into Christ's spiritual body.

To repeat once again the obvious, justification refers to the act or process of being made righteous by the washing of regeneration the circumcision of Christ.

It would be too bad if it were true. But as it stands, it is completely false.

Did I quote Wright in the OP speaking of us being placed in Christ? No. I didn't write the OP.

I did quote Wright speaking of justification being our placement in Christ.

Apparently you just didn't read it. That is on you, not me.

A good rule of thumb is to read something before you jump in arguing against it. That would have prevented all of those arguments you made on this thread that missed the mark when it comes to what Wright actually wrote.

 

[MrW]

I had not heard of Wright until a few days ago. I looked him up. I don’t agree with him. He doesn’t see the forest for the trees. He seems to look through a microscope all the while missing the picture.

 

[MrW]

The washing refers to removal.

"What does the washing of regeneration accomplish if God simply declares people righteous?"

JonC, you claimed washing of regeneration simply means "forgiving" (which is wrong) but you did not say why washing is necessary if God simply chose to declare people forgiven and righteous. Obviously there would be no need for the "circumcision of Christ or the washing of regeneration if we could have simply been "declared" righteous.

Righteousness is imputed, not imparted—that’s a Catholic error.

Sanctification is the process of making it experiential.

 

[JonC]

I had not heard of Wright until a few days ago. I looked him up. I don’t agree with him. He doesn’t see the forest for the trees. He seems to look through a microscope all the while missing the picture.

Most don't see the forest for the trees when it comes to theology .

He is, as you point out, looking at a very specific and narrow issue (justification) as used by Paul in specific passages.

I think we have a tendency to generalize aspects of salvation as meaning about the same thing. I don't think that's correct, but on the other hand it seems to me that many act as if the biblical writers were writing academic lessons or dissertations rather than communicating to the general public.

I mean, we have placed trust in men who earned doctorate degrees and studied for decades to explain to us what fishermen who followed Christ were telling other "everyday" folk.

And then, to make it worse, we have other pastors with DMin degrees dumbing down those explanations.

 

[Van]

I did quote Wright speaking of justification being our placement in Christ.

.

Which post?

 

[Van]

Righteousness is imputed, not imparted—that’s a Catholic error.

Sanctification is the process of making it experiential.

Two claims, both false.

God can consider something or someone to be righteous and proclaim that existent condition. For example God proclaimed that Abraham's faith was righteousness, Romans 4:5. Note also that God did not proclaim that Abraham was righteous, only his faith.

The word "sanctification" refers to two related actions by God, first to set someone or something apart for a purpose, and second, to make something or someone holy, righteous and blameless.

If we look at 2 Thessalonians 2:13 we see individuals were chosen for salvation "in (en) sanctification by the Spirit...." The Greek preposition is being used to show instrumentality, the means or manner of that choice. Here the idea is God transfers the individual's human spirit out of being "in Adam" and into being "in Christ." Thus the action of choosing is accomplished by spiritually relocating the chosen person.

 

[Van]

Romans 4:25
He who was delivered over because of our wrongdoings, and was raised because of our justification.​

Here "justification" translates "dikiaosis," (G1347) and would be better translated "was raised to facilitate our being made righteous."

Romans 5:18
So then, as through one offense the result was condemnation to all mankind, so also through one act of righteousness the result was justification of life to all mankind.​

Here "justification" translates "dikiaosis," (G1347) and would be better translated "...one act of righteousness providing the means of being made righteous and spiritually alive to all mankind."

Romans 5:16
The gift is not like that which came through the one who sinned; for on the one hand the judgment arose from one offense, resulting in condemnation, but on the other hand the gracious gift arose from many offenses, resulting in justification.
​

Here "justification" translates "dikaioma," (G1345) and would be better translated "...from many offenses, providing the means of our being made righteous."

 

[JonC]

Which post?

22 and 23

 

[MrW]

Two claims, both false.

How can you possibly say that in direct contradiction to the Word of God??

Romans 4:11
And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised: that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also.

Romans 4:22
And therefore it was imputed to him for righteousness:
Romans 4:23
Now it was not written for his sake alone, that it was imputed to him;
Romans 4:24
but for us also, to whom it shall be imputed, if we believe on him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead;
James 2:23
And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God.

Imputed is "credited to his account".

 

[JonC]

One issue is the word "justification" itself. It does not mean to change something. It means to declare, prove, announce, regard, or show that something is just or right.

NT Wright is absolutely correct when it comes to definitions.

Justification is a status, not a change. The change has occurred and the resulting state is regarded as just.

Wright points back to the change being our placement "in Christ". It is here and here alone that we are justified in the present. And this looks back to Christ's work. And it looks forward to judgment. But it is a declaration that we, being in Christ, are clothed with His righteousness.

 

[MrW]

Most don't see the forest for the trees when it comes to theology .

He is, as you point out, looking at a very specific and narrow issue (justification) as used by Paul in specific passages.

I think we have a tendency to generalize aspects of salvation as meaning about the same thing. I don't think that's correct, but on the other hand it seems to me that many act as if the biblical writers were writing academic lessons or dissertations rather than communicating to the general public.

I mean, we have placed trust in men who earned doctorate degrees and studied for decades to explain to us what fishermen who followed Christ were telling other "everyday" folk.

And then, to make it worse, we have other pastors with DMin degrees dumbing down those explanations.

I hear you, Jon, but I don't trust the doctorate-degreed people, unless they first agree with what I read in Scripture.

When I was saved (by the grace and goodness of God!) I didn't know Scripture and could have ended up like many Christians who just glance at a Bible every few months, but God worked circumstances where a friend gave me a New Testament for my birthday a month after salvation. I started reading it--every day. I read it straight through seven times in a row. In time, I started reading the entire Bible, cover-to-cover, and have completed it dozens of times. My point is not to brag, but to say this: I don't need the doctorate-degreed folks. The plain sense of the fisher folk is fine by me. If it can't make sense to ME, then it's too complicated for others, who have educated themselves into superiority over the rest of us (Nicolaitanism).

That brings me to Calvinism. I was raised Primitive Baptist, but as I just said, when I was saved, I started reading the Bible over and over, and forgot about that raising. I was reading GOD'S WORD! Years later, I encountered Calvinism, and started remembering the old stuff--I was surprised that Calvinism turns the Bible upside down and backward. It is NOT what Scripture plainly says.

SO---! I don't worry about Calvinism. When I get to Heaven, if God tells me Calvin was saved, I'll be happy for him, and if God tells me Calvinism is correct, I will say, "Well how about that? I believed the Bible exactly as it was written and I got it wrong? Well, Lord, I am surprised!".

When my Bible tells me God wants all to be saved (and it does tell me that), I believe it.

When my Bible tells me, "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved..." I believe it.

When my Bible tells me, "And it shall come to pass that whosoever calleth on the name of the Lord shall be saved", I believe it.

Therefore my Bible teaches me Calvin is in error. If God tells me in Heaven that he wasn't, then I'll believe I made a mistake by taking Scripture at face value. Until then, I will believe it exactly as it is written, "thus saith the LORD".

 

[kyredneck]

How can you possibly say that in direct contradiction to the Word of God??

Lol, @Van does it all the time...

Vanology for the most part is "in direct contradiction to the Word of God".

Hang around, you'll see.

 

[JonC]

I hear you, Jon, but I don't trust the doctorate-degreed people, unless they first agree with what I read in Scripture.

When I was saved (by the grace and goodness of God!) I didn't know Scripture and could have ended up like many Christians who just glance at a Bible every few months, but God worked circumstances where a friend gave me a New Testament for my birthday a month after salvation. I started reading it--every day. I read it straight through seven times in a row. In time, I started reading the entire Bible, cover-to-cover, and have completed it dozens of times. My point is not to brag, but to say this: I don't need the doctorate-degreed folks. The plain sense of the fisher folk is fine by me. If it can't make sense to ME, then it's too complicated for others, who have educated themselves into superiority over the rest of us (Nicolaitanism).

That brings me to Calvinism. I was raised Primitive Baptist, but as I just said, when I was saved, I started reading the Bible over and over, and forgot about that raising. I was reading GOD'S WORD! Years later, I encountered Calvinism, and started remembering the old stuff--I was surprised that Calvinism turns the Bible upside down and backward. It is NOT what Scripture plainly says.

SO---! I don't worry about Calvinism. When I get to Heaven, if God tells me Calvin was saved, I'll be happy for him, and if God tells me Calvinism is correct, I will say, "Well how about that? I believed the Bible exactly as it was written and I got it wrong? Well, Lord, I am surprised!".

When my Bible tells me God wants all to be saved (and it does tell me that), I believe it.

When my Bible tells me, "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved..." I believe it.

When my Bible tells me, "And it shall come to pass that whosoever calleth on the name of the Lord shall be saved", I believe it.

Therefore my Bible teaches me Calvin is in error. If God tells me in Heaven that he wasn't, then I'll believe I made a mistake by taking Scripture at face value. Until then, I will believe it exactly as it is written, "thus saith the LORD".

There's also a difference between what the Bible teaches, truths in the Bible, and what we infer from Scripture (I'm planning on starting a thread on this one).

Calvinism is not based on what the Bible teaches. It is based on some truths in Scripture and on what a sect infers from Scripture.

For example of what I mean -

The Bible teaches that the Father and Son are One.

Truths in Scripture are combined to form the doctrine of the Trinity, but the Doctrine of the Trinity is not actually taught by Scripture.

We can know both of the above are true.

But doctrines based inferring other ideas about those truths may or may not be true as they are dependent on our understanding.

Calvinism is in this way a very weak position. It relies too much on what is inferred rather than what is taught.

 

[kyredneck]

I don't trust the doctorate-degreed people, unless they first agree with what I read in Scripture.

WINNER!! ...more wisdom from your 'Old Baptist' upbringing whether you admit it or not...

"The Bible is a plain book. It is intelligible by the people. And they have the right, and are bound to read and interpret it for themselves; so that their faith may rest on the testimony of the Scriptures, and not on that of the Church. Such is the doctrine of Protestants on this subject.........." Charles Hodge

 

[JonC]

WINNER!! ...more wisdom from your 'Old Baptist' upbringing whether you admit it or not...

"The Bible is a plain book. It is intelligible by the people. And they have the right, and are bound to read and interpret it for themselves; so that their faith may rest on the testimony of the Scriptures, and not on that of the Church. Such is the doctrine of Protestants on this subject.........." Charles Hodge

Hey.....I said the same thing. Where's the love???


You do know that Charles Hodge was one of those degreed theologians (from Princeton), and then a seminary professor there....and then president of the seminary.

Just saying...

 

[kyredneck]

You do know that Charles Hodge was one of those degreed theologians (from Princeton), and then a seminary professor there....and then president of the seminary.

Just saying...

You do know that truth is truth, a fact is a fact, regardless of it's source, right?

Just saying...

[add]

If memory serves me right it was PBs that first acquainted me with some of Hodge's writings and I bought his Systematic Theology.

Take the skin off of Primitive Baptists and Calvinists and you have Monergists.