N.T. Wright

[JonC]

Did you not see these passages written by Paul?

Rom. 9:30 What then shall we say? That the Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have obtained it, righteousness that is by faith; 31 but the people of Israel, who pursued the law as the way of righteousness, have not attained their goal. 32 Why not? Because they pursued it not by faith but as if it were by works. They stumbled over the stumbling stone. 33 As it is written:

“See, I lay in Zion a stone that causes people to stumble
and a rock that makes them fall,
and the one who believes in him will never be put to shame.”

Rom. 10:1 Brothers and sisters, my heart’s desire and prayer to God for the Israelites is that they may be saved. 2 For I can testify about them that they are zealous for God, but their zeal is not based on knowledge. 3 Since they did not know the righteousness of God and sought to establish their own, they did not submit to God’s righteousness. 4 Christ is the culmination of the law so that there may be righteousness for everyone who believes.​

No. I saw it. This is part of my point. The Jewish sects were concerned with how they would be considered righteous in accordance to the covenant (the Old Covenant). They focused primarily on purity laws and had a real desire that the kingdom of God would come and they be among those who are right in this kingdom. They were in effect looking for a messiah (most likely along the lines of Judas Maccabee) and they were actively pursuing this righteousness by works.

This is different from saying that the Jews held a "works based salvation". The "saved" part is not the same.

 

[JonC]

The Pharisees believed that they were in right standing with God by virtue of their birthright, as being under the Mosaic Covenant, and also by them keeping the law in a fashion that merited favor of God!

No. They did not believe that they were "in right standing with God by virtue of their birthright". This is actually where you could push a "salvation by works". They believed that they were a people of God by birthright and within that people of God they would be righteous or unrighteous in accordance with the covenant. Their view of "salvation" was centered on an earthly kingdom of Israel set up by God.

 

[JonC]

The Jews at the time of Jesus did really believe and hold that they merited favor of God by works of the Law!

What favors do you believe Jews thought they earned by works of the Law?

 

[Calminian]

No. I saw it. This is part of my point. The Jewish sects were concerned with how they would be considered righteous in accordance to the covenant (the Old Covenant). They focused primarily on purity laws and had a real desire that the kingdom of God would come and they be among those who are right in this kingdom. They were in effect looking for a messiah (most likely along the lines of Judas Maccabee) and they were actively pursuing this righteousness by works.

This is different from saying that the Jews held a "works based salvation". The "saved" part is not the same.

Frankly, this looks like type of intellectual scripture twisting Wright and Walton do. My recommendation, stay away from them. I'm not even sure these guys are believers, frankly.

 

[JonC]

Frankly, this looks like type of intellectual scripture twisting Wright and Walton do. My recommendation, stay away from them. I'm not even sure these guys are believers, frankly.

That is exactly what others would say about MacArthur (and Reformed Christians).

The accusation is always those who disagree are advocating some type of intellectual scripture twisting and the recommendation is to always stay away. But the fact is there are many presuppositions that we hold, and these presuppositions can be viewed as "scripture twisting".

Granted, this is not like studying the gospel message and studying history to determine what the first century believed and how they would interpret Scripture demands some amount of intellectualism and literacy. But I do not believe that the believer is the worse for the effort.

It is important (for those who are serious about the topic) to understand what others are saying and why. Men like Wright are intelligent, but their ideas really are not so difficult to grasp that they escape the comprehension of moderately educated people. Once we understand what is being presented, then (and only then) can we evaluate the position with Scripture.

The problem with N.T. Wright is people do not take the time to consider what is being said because it would challenge the belief that they hold. I think that is good. I want my beliefs challenged. In my opinion a belief that cannot stand to challenge is like a faith that cannot endure suffering....it is simply not worth holding.

 

[kyredneck]

There is an issue with keeping the "letter" and not the "spirit" of the Law (legalism) but Scripture is pretty clear that God wants obedience.

Zactly. Therein lies the explanation to this seeming contradiction:

13 ....the doers of the law shall be justified: Ro 2

20 .... by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified ... Ro 3

 

[Calminian]

That is exactly what others would say about MacArthur (and Reformed Christians).

The accusation is always those who disagree are advocating some type of intellectual scripture twisting and the recommendation is to always stay away. But the fact is there are many presuppositions that we hold, and these presuppositions can be viewed as "scripture twisting".

Granted, this is not like studying the gospel message and studying history to determine what the first century believed and how they would interpret Scripture demands some amount of intellectualism and literacy. But I do not believe that the believer is the worse for the effort.

It is important (for those who are serious about the topic) to understand what others are saying and why. Men like Wright are intelligent, but their ideas really are not so difficult to grasp that they escape the comprehension of moderately educated people. Once we understand what is being presented, then (and only then) can we evaluate the position with Scripture.

The problem with N.T. Wright is people do not take the time to consider what is being said because it would challenge the belief that they hold. I think that is good. I want my beliefs challenged. In my opinion a belief that cannot stand to challenge is like a faith that cannot endure suffering....it is simply not worth holding.

I've read NT Wright and Walton first hand. I've contemplated their words. I've looked at their arguments in light of Scripture. It's sophistic scripture twisting. It sounds intellectual, and Christians look at their degrees and just assumed these guys know what they are talking about. I look at this particular case you're making. Paul said the precise opposite. But the intellectual comes back as say, "well, it doesn't really say that. Trust me, I'm educated."

Perhaps the issue of our disagreement is perspicuity. The straightforward words of Paul can be understood by the common man and the common man can use his words to challenge the intellectual.

 

[Yeshua1]

Where?

Did not paul state that israel failed to get right with God due to them relying upon their works and deeds?

 

[Yeshua1]

No. They did not believe that they were "in right standing with God by virtue of their birthright". This is actually where you could push a "salvation by works". They believed that they were a people of God by birthright and within that people of God they would be righteous or unrighteous in accordance with the covenant. Their view of "salvation" was centered on an earthly kingdom of Israel set up by God.

They held that due to the keeping of the Mosaic law, would be right in sight of God.

 

[Yeshua1]

No. I saw it. This is part of my point. The Jewish sects were concerned with how they would be considered righteous in accordance to the covenant (the Old Covenant). They focused primarily on purity laws and had a real desire that the kingdom of God would come and they be among those who are right in this kingdom. They were in effect looking for a messiah (most likely along the lines of Judas Maccabee) and they were actively pursuing this righteousness by works.

This is different from saying that the Jews held a "works based salvation". The "saved" part is not the same.

Paul was addressing individual salvation of Jews and Gentiles thru Lord Jesus, not what Wright sees him as teaching!

 

[Calminian]

Did not paul state that israel failed to get right with God due to them relying upon their works and deeds?

Exactly. Paul said they "pursued the law as the way of righteousness....." That's about as crystal clear as he could have been.

 

[JonC]

I've read NT Wright and Walton first hand. I've contemplated their words. I've looked at their arguments in light of Scripture. It's sophistic scripture twisting. It sounds intellectual, and Christians look at their degrees and just assumed these guys know what they are talking about. I look at this particular case you're making. Paul said the precise opposite. But the intellectual comes back as say, "well, it doesn't really say that. Trust me, I'm educated."

Perhaps the issue of our disagreement is perspicuity. The straightforward words of Paul can be understood by the common man and the common man can use his words to challenge the intellectual.

I'm not sure that we (you and I) actually disagree. I was speaking of Wright.

I have also read the materials. I just do not see it an honest statement to say Wright is "twisting Scripture" because that is a very false and misleading statement.

What Wright has done is base his interpretation on a different view of the first century worldview than has been presented traditionally in Reformed Theology. That has changed how Scripture is viewed - BUT it is not twisting Scripture. Contributing to Wright's view is extra-biblical materials about the first century Jewish worldview.

What we have to ask is not whether Wright's conclusions are correct but if Jewish literature accurately reflects the first century Jewish mindset. Perhaps it does. Perhaps it does not and was only an isolated sect or a latter contribution. But either way we have to do something with the accounts. You and I could be accused of twisting Scripture for approaching the biblical text from a Protestant standpoint.


Do you understand what I mean? We view Pauline theology to present a forensic justification. Scripture alone (apart from our own mindset) does not prove our point. Wright reliance on extra-biblical writings are no less extra-biblical than our own worldviews.

Where we start determines where we end. Do we assume the Reformers were correct in applying their worldview to the first century Jew? Do we assume rabbinic literature and fairly recently discovered Jewish documents are correct about first century Jewish thought? Either way it is extra-biblical (Scripture does not address the first century Jewish worldview as it came about after the OT was concluded and is taken for granted in the NT).

I am not implying that you are not educated. I am simply saying that just because something is difficult does not mean it is wrong. This is especially true when examining ancient worldviews. In this case saying "the straight forward teachings" or the "plain meaning" is a fallacy and is not an honest appraisal of the material at hand. We can only view ancient text as being "straight forward" if we ignore the text is written from an ancient perspective (if we read it as if it were written in a context contemporary to our own). That is what the Reformers did, and it is very questionable.

 

[Yeshua1]

What favors do you believe Jews thought they earned by works of the Law?

Getting and staying right with Yahweh!

 

[Yeshua1]

I've read NT Wright and Walton first hand. I've contemplated their words. I've looked at their arguments in light of Scripture. It's sophistic scripture twisting. It sounds intellectual, and Christians look at their degrees and just assumed these guys know what they are talking about. I look at this particular case you're making. Paul said the precise opposite. But the intellectual comes back as say, "well, it doesn't really say that. Trust me, I'm educated."

Perhaps the issue of our disagreement is perspicuity. The straightforward words of Paul can be understood by the common man and the common man can use his words to challenge the intellectual.

Basically, Wright is stating that all from Reformation forward totally misunderstood Pauline Justification, and be thankful I am here to give you the truth!

 

[Yeshua1]

I'm not sure that we (you and I) actually disagree. I was speaking of Wright.

I have also read the materials. I just do not see it an honest statement to say Wright is "twisting Scripture" because that is a very false and misleading statement.

What Wright has done is base his interpretation on a different view of the first century worldview than has been presented traditionally in Reformed Theology. That has changed how Scripture is viewed - BUT it is not twisting Scripture. Contributing to Wright's view is extra-biblical materials about the first century Jewish worldview.

What we have to ask is not whether Wright's conclusions are correct but if Jewish literature accurately reflects the first century Jewish mindset. Perhaps it does. Perhaps it does not and was only an isolated sect or a latter contribution. But either way we have to do something with the accounts. You and I could be accused of twisting Scripture for approaching the biblical text from a Protestant standpoint.


Do you understand what I mean? We view Pauline theology to present a forensic justification. Scripture alone (apart from our own mindset) does not prove our point. Wright reliance on extra-biblical writings are no less extra-biblical than our own worldviews.

Where we start determines where we end. Do we assume the Reformers were correct in applying their worldview to the first century Jew? Do we assume rabbinic literature and fairly recently discovered Jewish documents are correct about first century Jewish thought? Either way it is extra-biblical (Scripture does not address the first century Jewish worldview as it came about after the OT was concluded and is taken for granted in the NT).

I am not implying that you are not educated. I am simply saying that just because something is difficult does not mean it is wrong. This is especially true when examining ancient worldviews. In this case saying "the straight forward teachings" or the "plain meaning" is a fallacy and is not an honest appraisal of the material at hand. We can only view ancient text as being "straight forward" if we ignore the text is written from an ancient perspective (if we read it as if it were written in a context contemporary to our own). That is what the Reformers did, and it is very questionable.

Does Wright understand Judaism of that time, and salvation theology regarding justification better then Paul then?

 

[JonC]

Getting and staying right with Yahweh!

So you do not believe the Jews were covenantal?

 

[Yeshua1]

So you do not believe the Jews were covenantal?

They saw themselves as being the people and nation of God, and that due to them keeping the Law were a superior people!

 

[JonC]

Basically, Wright is stating that all from Reformation forward totally misunderstood Pauline Justification, and be thankful I am here to give you the truth!

No. Wright is very clear about what he is saying. He has said he does not have the truth but believes a dialogue needs to be taken up based on what we do know about first century Judaism and their understanding of God's covenant with Israel.

I do not believe that Wright has provided enough to determine that the Jewish view, while certainly not "salvation by works", does not in the end amount to the same thing (that there is a very important distinction - but in practice it is a distinction that really does not matter).

 

[37818]

Did not paul state that israel failed to get right with God due to them relying upon their works and deeds?

Again, where? Please give that reference.

 

[JonC]

They saw themselves as being the people and nation of God, and that due to them keeping the Law were a superior people!

You believe that the Jews believed they were a superior people by keeping the Law?!!