NT Wright

[JonC]

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...

I was unaware this was in question.

 

[Yeshua1]

I was unaware this was in question.

You seemed to suggest that htere was a salvation found in the Old covenant, and that the [roblem was not in its inability to really have any to be saved under it, but that we have misunderstood what it was meant to be, as NT Wright likes to point out!

 

[JonC]

You seemed to suggest that htere was a salvation found in the Old covenant, and that the [roblem was not in its inability to really have any to be saved under it, but that we have misunderstood what it was meant to be, as NT Wright likes to point out!

How on earth do you come up with that conclusion…from my comments or from Wright? Perhaps I missed something regarding Wright as I have not read very much of his work. Please point out where he presents salvation in any other way than through Christ. While we are at it, please show me where I suggest salvation in any other way but Christ. I'm at a loss to your conclusions.

 

[Yeshua1]

How on earth do you come up with that conclusion…from my comments or from Wright? Perhaps I missed something regarding Wright as I have not read very much of his work. Please point out where he presents salvation in any other way than through Christ. While we are at it, please show me where I suggest salvation in any other way but Christ. I'm at a loss to your conclusions.

NT Wright seems to hold that there was a kind of corporate election/relatiobship between God and the OT believers in israel, and that in his views, church is now spiritual Israel, so would have water baptism seen as circumcision was in Old covenant, and that the church is the community of faith...

His main points regarding though how salvation was not as the reformers saw it have not been supported, in my opinion...

 

[JonC]

NT Wright seems to hold that there was a kind of corporate election/relatiobship between God and the OT believers in israel, and that in his views, church is now spiritual Israel, so would have water baptism seen as circumcision was in Old covenant, and that the church is the community of faith...



His main points regarding though how salvation was not as the reformers saw it have not been supported, in my opinion...

But that doesn't address my question. (And I would add that your presentation of baptism is probably closer to what the reformers held than we as baptists hold).

 

[Yeshua1]

But that doesn't address my question. (And I would add that your presentation of baptism is probably closer to what the reformers held than we as baptists hold).

He holds the Old Covenant has saving power reiding in it, and my point is that only the new One has that!

And his views on water baptism are indeed like presby one...

 

[JonC]

He holds the Old Covenant has saving power reiding in it, and my point is that only the new One has that!

Can ya help me out with a reference where he says that, please.

And his views on water baptism are indeed like presby one...

Yep...he's Reformed...not Reformed Baptist. He is Anglican. I certainly disagree with Wright on baptism.

 

[Yeshua1]

Can ya help me out with a reference where he says that, please.



Yep...he's Reformed...not Reformed Baptist. He is Anglican. I certainly disagree with Wright on baptism.

His views that the Old Covenant was able to place sinners into right relationship with God, and he insists that Paul only was saying that to live by Torah was how they were to live as already saved, not as means to get saved...

Point is that NONE ever were made right by obeying the law!

 

[JonC]

His views that the Old Covenant was able to place sinners into right relationship with God, and he insists that Paul only was saying that to live by Torah was how they were to live as already saved, not as means to get saved...



Point is that NONE ever were made right by obeying the law!

I apologize for my lack of clarity. What I mean is that I have read Wright's view of Justification but cannot find the view you ascribe to him. Please provide a reference from Wright stating that the Old Covenant provided such a means for salvation. Then we can look at the rest. I have some of Wright's books, but not many. But from what I read, I understand Wright’s idea is Justification in relation to what he refers to as covenant theology - the belief that God called Abraham’s family into covenant with Him and that this covenant runs throughout God’s plan of redemption. Much of the issue is that Wright defines “righteous acts” as “acts in fulfillment of God’s covenant promises” rather than virtuous acts (Justification, 63). Still, I may have simply not run across the same materials to which you allude. Again, please source your statements from Wright and we can continue. It is never a matter of "opinion" when you attribute words or ideas to another person...these need to be sourced (if not in your post...as this is a bit dialogue, certainly upon request).

Thanks, brother.

 

[Yeshua1]

I apologize for my lack of clarity. What I mean is that I have read Wright's view of Justification but cannot find the view you ascribe to him. Please provide a reference from Wright stating that the Old Covenant provided such a means for salvation. Then we can look at the rest. I have some of Wright's books, but not many. But from what I read, I understand Wright’s idea is Justification in relation to what he refers to as covenant theology - the belief that God called Abraham’s family into covenant with Him and that this covenant runs throughout God’s plan of redemption. Much of the issue is that Wright defines “righteous acts” as “acts in fulfillment of God’s covenant promises” rather than virtuous acts (Justification, 63). Still, I may have simply not run across the same materials to which you allude. Again, please source your statements from Wright and we can continue. It is never a matter of "opinion" when you attribute words or ideas to another person...these need to be sourced (if not in your post...as this is a bit dialogue, certainly upon request).

Thanks, brother.

http://www.ligonier.org/learn/collections/doctrine-of-justification-and-new-perspectives-paul/
http://www.ligonier.org/learn/articles/whats-wrong-wright-examining-new-perspective-paul/

Preetty much says it all!

 

[JonC]

http://www.ligonier.org/learn/collections/doctrine-of-justification-and-new-perspectives-paul/
http://www.ligonier.org/learn/articles/whats-wrong-wright-examining-new-perspective-paul/

Preetty much says it all!

I'm not going through all of those opinions about the NPP just to find out if and where Wright stated that the Old Covenant was intended to save (especially as the books I have of...that is, authored by... Wright appear to indicate otherwise). You made the claim and I would appreciate it you would show me where Wright actually indicated what you attribute to him.

It's simple, Y1. Many do not hold the NPP, myself included. But when you go so far as to state that N.T. Wright believes a salvation apart from Christ found in the Old Covenant then it is incumbent upon you to back up those charges. Providing second hand opinion is not good enough. I ask again, please show me where N.T. Wright actually states what you assert he believes. If your charges are true, then it shouldn't be a difficult task as Wright is very (understatement) detailed about his views...regardless of the topic.

I hope you see my frustration. I've been studying the NPP on both sides - relying mostly on Wright's view (as it seems less problematic than Sanders and Dunn) and Piper's assessments (basically because I like Piper). But your assertions are far from what I have read of Wright (they are foreign to the materials on the NPP authored by Wright that I have read). To take such a stance (basically, denying that N.T. Wright has recognized the gospel message in Pauline texts) demands a reasonable level of proof. All I am asking is that you provide a legitimate source (not the opinions or reviews on the NPP, but at least one reference from N.T. Wright stating the belief you claim he holds). This is essential to being honest in any type of debate or study. It's the difference between various understandings of another's words and bearing false witness.

 

[Yeshua1]

I'm not going through all of those opinions about the NPP just to find out if and where Wright stated that the Old Covenant was intended to save (especially as the books I have of...that is, authored by... Wright appear to indicate otherwise). You made the claim and I would appreciate it you would show me where Wright actually indicated what you attribute to him.

It's simple, Y1. Many do not hold the NPP, myself included. But when you go so far as to state that N.T. Wright believes a salvation apart from Christ found in the Old Covenant then it is incumbent upon you to back up those charges. Providing second hand opinion is not good enough. I ask again, please show me where N.T. Wright actually states what you assert he believes. If your charges are true, then it shouldn't be a difficult task as Wright is very (understatement) detailed about his views...regardless of the topic.

I hope you see my frustration. I've been studying the NPP on both sides - relying mostly on Wright's view (as it seems less problematic than Sanders and Dunn) and Piper's assessments (basically because I like Piper). But your assertions are far from what I have read of Wright (they are foreign to the materials on the NPP authored by Wright that I have read). To take such a stance (basically, denying that N.T. Wright has recognized the gospel message in Pauline texts) demands a reasonable level of proof. All I am asking is that you provide a legitimate source (not the opinions or reviews on the NPP, but at least one reference from N.T. Wright stating the belief you claim he holds). This is essential to being honest in any type of debate or study. It's the difference between various understandings of another's words and bearing false witness.

I am saying that he sees the Law not as paul did, as he sees that Israel was made right by it!

 

[JonC]

I am saying that he sees the Law not as paul did, as he sees that Israel was made right by it!

And I am asking that you back up what you are saying by providing a reference to N.T. Wright actually concluding that Israel was made right by the Law. Just saying it over and over again does not validate your point.

 

[JonC]

Still waiting, brother. In the meantime, perhaps this will illustrate my questioning of your "conclusion" based on your "opinion":

The point that Wright makes regarding the way that first century Jews viewed Torah (Old Covenant, the Law), he summarized like this:

“First, God will soon bring the whole world into judgment, at which point some people will be ‘reckoned in the right’, as Abraham and Phinehas were. Second, there are particular things, even in the present time, which will function as signs of that coming verdict. Third, those particular things are naturally enough the things that mark out loyal Israelites from disloyal ones; in other words (remember Mattathias!) who perform these things in the present time can thus be assured that the verdict to be issued in the future, when the age to come is finally launched, can already be known, can be anticipated, in the present. This, I believe, is what a first-century Pharisee would have meant by ‘justification by the works of the law’ (Paul and the Faithfulness of God, 168). These works are not, according to Wright, a means for “Israel to be in the right” but their understanding of a present sign of who will be vindicated in the future (pg. 169). Jews believed that they were God’s covenant people because God chose them…not because they merited God’s favor.

It is not here that I agree or disagree with Wright, although in application I think he misses the mark (in the overall picture he is painting regarding first-century Judaism and works)…but that’s another matter. The problem I have with your statement(s) is that the above quote is not the first of Wright’s that disproves the conclusions you repeatedly make. Yet you have chosen to ignore the fact that Wright’s own words disproves your assessment, you’ve ignored repeated calls to provide evidence of your claims, and you continue to post your “opinion” about what you "think" another person believes.

Again, all I am asking is that you provide a legitimate source (not the opinions or reviews on the NPP, but at least one reference from N.T. Wright stating the belief you claim he holds). This is essential to being honest in any type of debate or study. It's the difference between various understandings of another's words and bearing false witness.

 

[Yeshua1]

Still waiting, brother. In the meantime, perhaps this will illustrate my questioning of your "conclusion" based on your "opinion":

The point that Wright makes regarding the way that first century Jews viewed Torah (Old Covenant, the Law), he summarized like this:

“First, God will soon bring the whole world into judgment, at which point some people will be ‘reckoned in the right’, as Abraham and Phinehas were. Second, there are particular things, even in the present time, which will function as signs of that coming verdict. Third, those particular things are naturally enough the things that mark out loyal Israelites from disloyal ones; in other words (remember Mattathias!) who perform these things in the present time can thus be assured that the verdict to be issued in the future, when the age to come is finally launched, can already be known, can be anticipated, in the present. This, I believe, is what a first-century Pharisee would have meant by ‘justification by the works of the law’ (Paul and the Faithfulness of God, 168). These works are not, according to Wright, a means for “Israel to be in the right” but their understanding of a present sign of who will be vindicated in the future (pg. 169). Jews believed that they were God’s covenant people because God chose them…not because they merited God’s favor.

It is not here that I agree or disagree with Wright, although in application I think he misses the mark (in the overall picture he is painting regarding first-century Judaism and works)…but that’s another matter. The problem I have with your statement(s) is that the above quote is not the first of Wright’s that disproves the conclusions you repeatedly make. Yet you have chosen to ignore the fact that Wright’s own words disproves your assessment, you’ve ignored repeated calls to provide evidence of your claims, and you continue to post your “opinion” about what you "think" another person believes.

Again, all I am asking is that you provide a legitimate source (not the opinions or reviews on the NPP, but at least one reference from N.T. Wright stating the belief you claim he holds). This is essential to being honest in any type of debate or study. It's the difference between various understandings of another's words and bearing false witness.

The main difference between us is that I tend to see him actually defending that the Lewish peoples were made right with God by keeping the totah, and that paul was really saying that they were already saved by the Covenant relationship, and failed to keep the law as they shoudl as people of God, but my take on Paul is that he saw no hope in the Old One to save sinners, and that the New One is the hope of the redeemed, aswe did have to keep the law to merit salvation, or else have Jesus meet that for us!

And NR Weight still seems to hold open in his virews of a "final vindication", that somehow keeping the Law somehow merits favor for God, as we cannot have assurance of salvation until after death and final judgement of our lives...

 

[JonC]

The main difference between us is that I tend to see him actually defending that the Lewish peoples were made right with God by keeping the totah, and that paul was really saying that they were already saved by the Covenant relationship, and failed to keep the law as they shoudl as people of God, but my take on Paul is that he saw no hope in the Old One to save sinners, and that the New One is the hope of the redeemed, aswe did have to keep the law to merit salvation, or else have Jesus meet that for us!

I think that this is what I really don’t understand. My criticism of Wright’s NPP has more to do with Judaism being a legalistic means of pleasing God. Wright correctly states that Israel viewed salvation as a matter of God’s election (Israel as God’s covenant people). He is right to say that we often present Judaism as holding a different view (earning salvation) when Scripture itself testifies that this is not the case. But then Wright points out that they viewed works as a sign of a future justification (much like we view works as a sign of saving faith). The problem that I have is that I think perhaps first century Judaism was at heart a legalistic religion (think, for example, of the relationship between works and salvation in some Arminian traditions). Anyway…I say this to let you know that I am not a blind NT Wright follower.

What I do not understand is how you view Wright as defending that Jewish people were made right with God by keeping the Torah. This is foreign to Scripture and foreign to N.T. Wright. What I am requesting is that you show me where NT Wright even hints at such doctrine.

 

[Yeshua1]

I think that this is what I really don’t understand. My criticism of Wright’s NPP has more to do with Judaism being a legalistic means of pleasing God. Wright correctly states that Israel viewed salvation as a matter of God’s election (Israel as God’s covenant people). He is right to say that we often present Judaism as holding a different view (earning salvation) when Scripture itself testifies that this is not the case. But then Wright points out that they viewed works as a sign of a future justification (much like we view works as a sign of saving faith). The problem that I have is that I think perhaps first century Judaism was at heart a legalistic religion (think, for example, of the relationship between works and salvation in some Arminian traditions). Anyway…I say this to let you know that I am not a blind NT Wright follower.

What I do not understand is how you view Wright as defending that Jewish people were made right with God by keeping the Torah. This is foreign to Scripture and foreign to N.T. Wright. What I am requesting is that you show me where NT Wright even hints at such doctrine.

He views keeping the Torah as to what the aleady saved Covenant jew would be doing, so he does not agree with paul that none under the old covenat were saved by doing the torah, as none ever could, and he seems to view election on a national way, not for each individual saved person, which seems foreign to pauline theology..

 

[JonC]

He views keeping the Torah as to what the aleady saved Covenant jew would be doing, so he does not agree with paul that none under the old covenat were saved by doing the torah, as none ever could, and he seems to view election on a national way, not for each individual saved person, which seems foreign to pauline theology..

How is the viewing the election of Israel as God choosing a nation different from Paul's view (that branches were cut off so non-Israelites could be grafted in)? I don't think you can get much more a nation election view than presented by Paul. I think you are confusing an elected people with individual election (one is not exclusive of the other).

Second, you are confusing Wrights comments on first century thought and actual truth. The comments about The relationship between Torah and a final justification were about Jewish understandings, not that they were actually successful in keeping the Law. How did you miss his discussion about various Jewish sects viewing different aspects of the Law as the "proof"? Which work are you actually reading?

And again, please reference Wright.

 

[JonC]

He views keeping the Torah as to what the aleady saved Covenant jew would be doing, so he does not agree with paul that none under the old covenat were saved by doing the torah, as none ever could, and he seems to view election on a national way, not for each individual saved person, which seems foreign to pauline theology..

How is the viewing that God chose Israel different from Paul's view (that branches were cut off so non-Israelites could be grafted in)? I don't think you can get much more a national election view than presented by Paul...and Scripture. I think you are confusing an elected people with individual election (one is not exclusive of the other).

Second, you are confusing Wrights comments on first century thought and actual truth. The comments about The relationship between Torah and a final justification were about Jewish understandings, not that they were actually successful in keeping the Law. How did you miss his discussion about various Jewish sects viewing different aspects of the Law as the "proof" of justification? Which writings of N.T. Wright are you reading?

And again, please reference Wright. You have a tendency to misrepresent what he actually states. I am starting to get the idea that you have absolutely no idea what Wright expresses of the NPP and instead are offering an opinion twice removed. I'm still giving you the benefit of the doubt...but please provide references to back up your conclusions.

 

[Greektim]

How is the viewing that God chose Israel different from Paul's view (that branches were cut off so non-Israelites could be grafted in)? I don't think you can get much more a national election view than presented by Paul...and Scripture. I think you are confusing an elected people with individual election (one is not exclusive of the other).

Second, you are confusing Wrights comments on first century thought and actual truth. The comments about The relationship between Torah and a final justification were about Jewish understandings, not that they were actually successful in keeping the Law. How did you miss his discussion about various Jewish sects viewing different aspects of the Law as the "proof" of justification? Which writings of N.T. Wright are you reading?

And again, please reference Wright. You have a tendency to misrepresent what he actually states. I am starting to get the idea that you have absolutely no idea what Wright expresses of the NPP and instead are offering an opinion twice removed. I'm still giving you the benefit of the doubt...but please provide references to back up your conclusions.

This is why I don't talk about NT WRight w/ anyone here (anymore). They tend to only know second hand or third hand "info" about him. They don't offer sources b/c they by and large have not read him or heard him. It is a tiresome enterprise to defend him here.