NT Wright

[JonC]

problem is that NT Wright jeeps wanting to make the Church modern day Spiritul isreal, and by doing that, he sees a corporate election view of justification, and he sees water baptism as entry inthat faith community, and that we cannot even be fully justified until after death, as God has to view how we lived to merit that!



he does see himself as BEST way to view pauline teaching, and that reformers got him all wrong!

Wright dose seem to see a strong continuity in God's redemptive plan as embodied in the Abrahamic Covenant, and as you imply, he holds a more Reformed view of baptism than we as Baptists would consider correct.

 

[Greektim]

Defending N. T. Wright here is a tireless (and thankless) enterprise. I'm to the point now where I am done engaging people about him. I will just let them bash him, and it is their loss as to what they refuse to glean from him. I however will continue to enjoy his works and dialogue with his views.

 

[JonC]

he does see himself as BEST way to view pauline teaching, and that reformers got him all wrong!

I wanted to point out that we all see our views as the best way to view biblical teaching (otherwise we would change our views to what we considered the best view....then we'd be back to square one - seeing our view as the best way). Only a fool would say "this is what I believe, even though I believe it false."

Defending N. T. Wright here is a tireless (and thankless) enterprise. I'm to the point now where I am done engaging people about him. I will just let them bash him, and it is their loss as to what they refuse to glean from him. I however will continue to enjoy his works and dialogue with his views.

This is probably the best path. I had hoped that discussing NT Wright would be an engagement on his positions (whether one agrees or disagrees), but here the topic normally descends....no, it normally begins and continues to be...a blind rebuttal without substance. If anyone could ever pull it off here on the BB, it would be interesting to honestly engage his views. Personally, I believe that he brings out many truths that are often ignored or minimized (although I do disagree with him on several issues).

 

[The Biblicist]

Given your first paragraph, I am not sure that I understand your objection to Wright's use of "works" to refer to the Law. If the Law is the most comprehensive revelation of the righteousness of God, then why would the pauline view of "works" not be in context of the Law?

Paul is arguing from the greater to the lessor. My point is that the greater is inclusive of the lessor. Hence, "works" is merely whatever you do IN and THROUGH your own body in any attempt to please God or be justified by God. The Mosaic law is the most comprehensive explanation of right and wrong but is inclusive of all lessor standards (conscience, culture, etc.).

Paul's point is that there is NOTHING you can do IN and THROUGH your own body before or after salvation that meets God's standard of righteousness whether defined by Mosaic law or by conscience or by culture. Only Christ has performed works in and through His own body that satisfies that standard. That is why righteousness must be IMPUTED by faith rather than a product of faithfulness in and through your own body.

Second, I am also not sure that I understand what you mean by righteousness that is "freely imputed" to the believer by faith. If you mean that we are considered righteous because we are "in Christ," that we are clothed in His righteousness, then I agree (please correct me if I misunderstand your point).

Righteousness for justification is NOT IMPARTED by regeneration nor can it be obtained by sanctification. It is imparted only through imputation. It is a FOREIGN or EXTERNAL righteousness outside of self and all that is done IN and THROUGH you own body. The term "justification" is found in connection with the "law" and thus by context is a forensic term. Therefore, it means DELCARED RIGHTEOUS as a legal verdict rather than made righteous by regeneration (spiritual union).

Furthermore, spiritual union does not justify you according to God's standard of righteousness BECAUSE your body is not brought into spiritual union with Christ and neither is your soul as it still sins. Hence, it is impossible for spiritual union to be the basis for justification. In addition justification by God's standard requires a SINLESS LIFE from birth to death. That is the symoblism found in the lamb WITHOUT SPOT OR BLEMISH. That is why Christ needed to be virgin born. That is why Christ could ask who could find sin him and why he did no sin. The only life justified by God is a life from birth to death that is sinless.

 

[JonC]

Paul is arguing from the greater to the lessor. My point is that the greater is inclusive of the lessor. Hence, "works" is merely whatever you do IN and THROUGH your own body in any attempt to please God or be justified by God. The Mosaic law is the most comprehensive explanation of right and wrong but is inclusive of all lessor standards (conscience, culture, etc.).

Paul's point is that there is NOTHING you can do IN and THROUGH your own body before or after salvation that meets God's standard of righteousness whether defined by Mosaic law or by conscience or by culture. Only Christ has performed works in and through His own body that satisfies that standard. That is why righteousness must be IMPUTED by faith rather than a product of faithfulness in and through your own body.




Righteousness for justification is NOT IMPARTED by regeneration nor can it be obtained by sanctification. It is imparted only through imputation. It is a FOREIGN or EXTERNAL righteousness outside of self and all that is done IN and THROUGH you own body. The term "justification" is found in connection with the "law" and thus by context is a forensic term. Therefore, it means DELCARED RIGHTEOUS as a legal verdict rather than made righteous by regeneration (spiritual union).

Furthermore, spiritual union does not justify you according to God's standard of righteousness BECAUSE your body is not brought into spiritual union with Christ and neither is your soul as it still sins. Hence, it is impossible for spiritual union to be the basis for justification. In addition justification by God's standard requires a SINLESS LIFE from birth to death. That is the symoblism found in the lamb WITHOUT SPOT OR BLEMISH. That is why Christ needed to be virgin born. That is why Christ could ask who could find sin him and why he did no sin. The only life justified by God is a life from birth to death that is sinless.

Thank you for clarifying (not that was not clear to begin with....just that it was not clear to me :tonofbricks.

I think that we are on common ground when we see the righteousness as a declaration rather than a characteristic. It is the righteousness of Christ.

 

[The Biblicist]

Thank you for clarifying (not that was not clear to begin with....just that it was not clear to me :tonofbricks.

I think that we are on common ground when we see the righteousness as a declaration rather than a characteristic. It is the righteousness of Christ.

Your welcome! Glad we agree!

 

[Yeshua1]

Thank you for clarifying (not that was not clear to begin with....just that it was not clear to me :tonofbricks.

I think that we are on common ground when we see the righteousness as a declaration rather than a characteristic. It is the righteousness of Christ.

And NT Wright would seem to be suggesting that we can and must be obedient to God and his laws, in order to enable Him to be freely able to grant us ternal life, he almost sounds like he is attempting to bridge between reformed/RCC theolgies, hence his views that he in the NPP really understands pauline justification...

 

[JonC]

And NT Wright would seem to be suggesting that we can and must be obedient to God and his laws, in order to enable Him to be freely able to grant us ternal life, he almost sounds like he is attempting to bridge between reformed/RCC theolgies, hence his views that he in the NPP really understands pauline justification...

What did he wright that drew you to this conclusion? My take on his understanding of salvation is certainly different (probably because not only Wright but his opponents within Reformed faith seem to disagree wholeheartedly with your assessment) and your comments lean more towards slander than genuine engagement. To prove your point, you will have to show where Wright indeed says what you suggest he states. In other words, back up your assertions.

For example, when Wright says "salvation is accomplished by the sovereign grace of God, operating through the death of Jesus Christ in our place and on our behalf, and appropriated through faith alone" (Justification: God's Plan & Paul's Vision, pg 10.) how do you view this as a works based salvation?

 

[JonC]

Yesuah1,

In April we had a similar discussion and your PM indicated that you simply "inferred" things from Wright's statements (you vaguely point to Wrights belief that we are now declared righteous and this is evidenced by works as a product of salvation but that there will also be a future day of judgment...i.e., that the works of the Spirit are a declaration of a future verdict....this you "infer" to mean a works based salvation along the lines of the RCC).

All I am asking you to do is actually demonstrate that you are not bearing false witness by providing a basis for your comments. Perhaps you are correct, but you offer no evidence other than the feeling you get when you read about Wright. Again, please reference where Wright states that we are saved by works. Please show where he is trying to "bridge between Reformed and RCC theologies."

 

[Yeshua1]

What did he wright that drew you to this conclusion? My take on his understanding of salvation is certainly different (probably because not only Wright but his opponents within Reformed faith seem to disagree wholeheartedly with your assessment) and your comments lean more towards slander than genuine engagement. To prove your point, you will have to show where Wright indeed says what you suggest he states. In other words, back up your assertions.

For example, when Wright says "salvation is accomplished by the sovereign grace of God, operating through the death of Jesus Christ in our place and on our behalf, and appropriated through faith alone" (Justification: God's Plan & Paul's Vision, pg 10.) how do you view this as a works based salvation?

I am simple suggesting that NT Wright views salvation as more akin to a coportae election model, and that he sees water baptism as the entry into that "community of faith", and still sees us needing to show and prove that we are 'vindicated" by God by our good works, so we will no have full assurance of salvation until that final review by god!

He just seems to want to get a middle ground between reform and catholic theology, in my opinion.

www.ligonier.org/learn/articles/nt-wright-and-new-perspective-paul/
www.ligonier.org/ learn/ collections/ doctrine-of-justification-and-new-perspectives-paul/

 

[JonC]

I am simple suggesting that NT Wright views salvation as more akin to a coportae election model, and that he sees water baptism as the entry into that "community of faith", and still sees us needing to show and prove that we are 'vindicated" by God by our good works, so we will no have full assurance of salvation until that final review by god!

He just seems to want to get a middle ground between reform and catholic theology, in my opinion.

But do you actually arrive at that conclusion from Wright or are you interpreting/taking the opinions of others (is your suggestion legitimate or is it your understanding of another's opinion of Wright)?

The reason I ask is that you do seem to hint at some concerns I have with Wright, but you take them in a very different direction than seems justified with Wright's position. Can you show me where Wright leans towards this middle ground (that he is actually seeking this middle ground rather than suggesting the Reformers may have interpreted concepts within their own 16th century worldviews). Otherwise you seem to want to deny any potential for truth if it is not automatically in opposition to the RCC (thus the RCC would become your authority, although negatively, instead of Scripture).

 

[Yeshua1]

But do you actually arrive at that conclusion from Wright or are you interpreting/taking the opinions of others (is your suggestion legitimate or is it your understanding of another's opinion of Wright)?

The reason I ask is that you do seem to hint at some concerns I have with Wright, but you take them in a very different direction than seems justified with Wright's position. Can you show me where Wright leans towards this middle ground (that he is actually seeking this middle ground rather than suggesting the Reformers may have interpreted concepts within their own 16th century worldviews). Otherwise you seem to want to deny any potential for truth if it is not automatically in opposition to the RCC (thus the RCC would become your authority, although negatively, instead of Scripture).

Judaism of the time of jesus and paul was not as he sees it, as a religion that had brought the jewish nation into Covenant with God, as it was a broken system, that failed to establish what God required, as hymans are weak and unable to live as god requires, so had to establish the new Covenant , where he was now living in His people, and giving them the grace to be forgiven and power to live as they ought!

There was really no saving grace in Old coveant as he assumes that it was when jesus came, as the religious leaders had perverted and corrupted it, and paul theology wasa radical "new thing' God was doing!

 

[JonC]

Judaism of the time of jesus and paul was not as he sees it, as a religion that had brought the jewish nation into Covenant with God, as it was a broken system, that failed to establish what God required, as hymans are weak and unable to live as god requires, so had to establish the new Covenant , where he was now living in His people, and giving them the grace to be forgiven and power to live as they ought!

There was really no saving grace in Old coveant as he assumes that it was when jesus came, as the religious leaders had perverted and corrupted it, and paul theology wasa radical "new thing' God was doing!

Yeshua1,

Thank you for explaining your view on the covenants. I don’t know why I did not think of it before, perhaps because it really didn’t come up, but my fault was that I assumed we had a similar understanding of the covenants. We have been talking past each other all this time.

I know that this is not the place to debate our differences (on this topic), but just so you also understand where I stand:

1. The Old Covenant was not a broken system, instead I see it as fulfilling exactly its intended purpose (it was not a failure - it was perfect).

2. God did not “have to” establish a new covenant because of human weakness. The Old Covenant and the New Covenant were/are a part of God’s original plan and both are within the Abrahamic Covenant.

3. There was saving grace in the Old Covenant - it was the New Covenant that it foreshadowed in the person of Jesus Christ. This can be seen throughout the Old Testament.

4. While religious leaders were blinded (in accordance to God’s plan), they did not pervert and corrupt the Old Covenant. God is not so easily conquered. They were themselves perverted and corrupt.

5. The salvation of God is a thread that runs from Genesis through Revelation. The theme is redemption, and this redemption plan is for the glory of God and not man. Those who are saved now are Abraham’s ‘spiritual seed.’ God did not nullify His covenant with Abraham.

I believe your views unorthodox, as a denial of God’s one redemptive plan as expressed throughout Scripture as a whole. You, I am sure, view my view much the same, but as clinging to a failed covenant that God made with Abraham.

 

[thomas15]

......
I do not believe it is difficult to see influences of the Reformation in our contemporary understanding. Perhaps these were derived from Scripture…but perhaps the environment that gave birth to the Reformation colored their (and our) view. There are instances where it seems that we interpret Paul as if he were a sixteenth century Reformer rather than a first century Christian. What I appreciate about NT Wright is that, wright or wrong, he brings these issues to the forefront and challenges our tendency to hold tradition above Scripture. I have many Catholic friends who could benefit from that principle.

Would it be possible in your estimatimation that in say 400 years from now, in the year 2417, in October of that year, someone on the nets might be of the opinion that N.T. Wright saw his theology through the lens of an individual living in an early 21st century Church of England environment?

 

[JonC]

Would it be possible in your estimatimation that in say 400 years from now, in the year 2417, in October of that year, someone on the nets might be of the opinion that N.T. Wright saw his theology through the lens of an individual living in an early 21st century Church of England environment?

I think it is always possible that our interpretation be influenced by our contemporary setting - and we need to do our best to prevent this. Insofar as Wright, maybe some aspects are influenced by "over correction," some by Anglican tradition, and some by his environment. The possibility is there for all of us, but the certainty is there for those who ignore such presuppositions.

 

[thomas15]

I think it is always possible that our interpretation be influenced by our contemporary setting - and we need to do our best to prevent this. Insofar as Wright, maybe some aspects are influenced by "over correction," some by Anglican tradition, and some by his environment. The possibility is there for all of us, but the certainty is there for those who ignore such presuppositions.

The covenant A-Mils are of the opinion that the dispys are in error because they look at what is going on in the world today and apply it to Biblical prophecy. Could not the covenant A-Mils be applying Calvanistic tradition or a modern humanistic environmental considerations into their thinking?

You speak of "Anglican Tradition". There are many in the COE who place their book of prayer above the Bible, believe in baptismal regeneration, for that matter the entire COE is basically in a spiritual shambles today and yet N.T. Wright is someone that we should listen to. Why? Are there no wise voices out there that are not chained to the modern disaster known as the COE?

I'm not yelling at you personally Jon.

 

[JonC]

I'm not yelling at you personally Jon.

:thumbs: No worries...I'm not Anglican :smilewinkgrin:.

That said, I do not know that Anglican, Presbyterian, Arminian, Reformed, Baptist, etc. in and of itself qualifies or disqualifies one from making a valid observation. I am not saying blindly listen to Wright...or MacArthur...or Keller...or anyone. But perhaps his view needs to be considered and weighed before blindly dismissing it. One can be wrong about much and still be right about much (and vise-versa).

 

[JohnDeereFan]

A FB friend of mine was singing his praises and pointed me to his The Resurrection of the Son of God book, however it looks deep and at 740 pages not sure I can handle such a book, especially since I am no longer in seminary. Greek Tim is in school so he does not understand my situation, but I have got wonder how many laymen read such books? Does any laymen (former graduate students, and not working in ministry FT) read these kinds of books. Are there any?

I wouldn't waste my time with N.T. Wright.

The White Horse Inn dedicated an entire program to the problems with Wright's theology:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ARG2SmHwlI

Let the childish name calling begin!

 

[JonC]

Let the childish name calling begin!

Dufus :laugh:...your turn.

Seriously though, it amazes me that so many here find the writings of John Calvin and many others edifying even though they disagree with much of their theology. For me, it is the same with NT Wright. I haven't 'bought into' the NPP at all...but that does not mean I merely dismiss his ideas. Personally, I think it is edifying even when I disagree with the author...it is a time to review my own positions and see how others view the topic.

 

[Yeshua1]

Yeshua1,

Thank you for explaining your view on the covenants. I don’t know why I did not think of it before, perhaps because it really didn’t come up, but my fault was that I assumed we had a similar understanding of the covenants. We have been talking past each other all this time.

I know that this is not the place to debate our differences (on this topic), but just so you also understand where I stand:

1. The Old Covenant was not a broken system, instead I see it as fulfilling exactly its intended purpose (it was not a failure - it was perfect).

2. God did not “have to” establish a new covenant because of human weakness. The Old Covenant and the New Covenant were/are a part of God’s original plan and both are within the Abrahamic Covenant.

3. There was saving grace in the Old Covenant - it was the New Covenant that it foreshadowed in the person of Jesus Christ. This can be seen throughout the Old Testament.

4. While religious leaders were blinded (in accordance to God’s plan), they did not pervert and corrupt the Old Covenant. God is not so easily conquered. They were themselves perverted and corrupt.

5. The salvation of God is a thread that runs from Genesis through Revelation. The theme is redemption, and this redemption plan is for the glory of God and not man. Those who are saved now are Abraham’s ‘spiritual seed.’ God did not nullify His covenant with Abraham.

I believe your views unorthodox, as a denial of God’s one redemptive plan as expressed throughout Scripture as a whole. You, I am sure, view my view much the same, but as clinging to a failed covenant that God made with Abraham.

The Apostle paul plainly stated that the Old Covenant failed to save anyone, due to us havin sinful and weal flesh/natures, and that it was only given by God until time of the coming messiah, so why disagree with paul on that?

ANY sinners that were ver saved was due to the death and resurrection of Jesus...