Why are So many Accepting the Theology of NT Wright here?

[JonC]

Very good. I read the article and it explains some of the movement he underwent over the years.

If you are really interested, the first step would actually be understanding where NT Wright is coming from.

I've started several times to do this, but I lacked the interest. Maybe I'll pick it up, but it seems to be an issue within a camp I have left.

If it helps, the issue is "the New Prespective on Paul", which is not really new at all. Contemporary interest (a redurgance?) Began in the 1970's with Sanders. I have read his view. From there you have a few others before getting to NT Wright. Dunn coined the term "New Prespective on Paul" in the 80's.

Each biblical scholar came to their own conclusions, but they started with the same observation -
That Paul was less focused on works based salvation than he was on the Covenant and ethnic inclusion of Gentiles. They observed that the Reformers assumed the issue with 1st century Jews was the same issue that they had with the Roman Catholic Church.

Instead of the 1st century Jew seeking to earn salvation through works, these theologians held that the 1st century Jew believed they were God's chosen people based on their birth (their ethnicity). If this is true then the issue of works, even for the 1st century Jew, was a matter of signifying a future state of inclusion.

From there each went their own way in terms of developing their views.

What I do like about NT Wright is he makes very good observations concerning the problem with the view of the Reformation and he states that his solution (his conclusion) is probably wrong and has often urged others who hold a Reformed position to join in the dialogue.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

None of these teach 'faith alone'.

There is not a 'faith alone' passage to be found in the bible.

Justification by faith alone is a Reformed construct.

Agree extra biblical.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Probably the same book I'm referencing. Piper is a lot more concise than NT Wright. Towards the beginning of "The Future of Justification" Piper states that NT Wright is a great Chriatian scholar who has earned his respect. That tells is how much you align with Piper. Towards the end of that book Piper states that NT Wright may very well be correct, but his view needs to be simplified in order to be teachable (it does not fit within the modern Western culture). A few chapters in Piper makes a poor argument (that Penal Substitution Theory has been in place since the Reformation and should not be reexamined).

Why not… what is his reasoning for such a cavalier statement?

 

[DaveXR650]

So is it, you too oppose the Biblical concept being called faith alone?

No. I think Owen was right and Baxter was wrong. Owen wrote "The Doctrine of Justification by Faith". Chapter 1 is where that quote is found. In the same chapter he also said "There is a faith whereby we are justified, which he who has shall be assuredly saved; which purifies the heart and works by love. And there is a faith or believing, which does nothing of all this; which who has, and has no more, is not justified, nor can be saved. Wherefore, every faith, whereby men are said to believe, is not justifying."

I think that is what is being talked about in James where he says "What good is it my brothers if someone says he has faith but does not have works. Can that faith save him?"James 2:14 ESV

So, the Biblical concept called justification by faith alone is sound. The words "faith alone" are not found in scripture. However; in describing what is required on our part faith is all by itself and the one thing mentioned. I would call that "alone". So did Owen and Luther and a whole bunch of guys.

 

[JonC]

Why not… what is his reasoning for such a cavalier statement?

His reasoning for considering NT Wright in high regard is that NT Wright has contributed probably more than any other contemporary scholar to the Reformed understsnding of Paul.

His reasoning for saying that NT Wright may be correct is that Wright's position is not contrary to what is written in the Bible. What is being questioned is the 1st century Jewish understanding of what is meant to be a member of the people of God.

His reasoning for saying that NT Wright's view is too complicated to be taught is that it does not fit well in Western culture whereas the traditional Reformed view is a Western position (it is simple and fits well with our culture....no work to grasp it). Also, Wright's reliance on the secular Jewish environment of the 1st century means we'd have to teach that culture for the view to make sence.

I don't know why he said we should not question a doctrine that has existed since the Reformation. I was kinda surprised with that one.

 

[DaveXR650]

Instead of the 1st century Jew seeking to earn salvation through works, these theologians held that the 1st century Jew believed they were God's chosen people based on their birth (their ethnicity). If this is true then the issue of works, even for the 1st century Jew, was a matter of signifying a future state of inclusion.

That does look like what is going on in Romans 9 and Acts 13. But too many other passages have Paul himself discussing works as opposed to faith. When works vs faith is so clearly put forth by Paul himself I find it hard to believe that the Reformers were only thinking of the RC's.

 

[kyredneck]

Paul IS talking about the LETTER of the law in this context.

This context?:

Romans Chapter 2

15​	in that they show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness therewith, and their thoughts one with another accusing or else excusing them);

Will autopsy reveal literal letters literally written on literal flesh? Are you literally as brutish as Nicodemus?

Is this also the literal letter of the law?:

2nd Corinthians Chapter 3

3​	being made manifest that ye are an epistle of Christ, ministered by us, written not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God; not in tables of stone, but in tables that are hearts of flesh.

Are you so brutish that you're unable to discern that the two are synonymous?:

...the law written in their hearts...

... circumcision is that of the heart...

29 but he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God. Ro 2

 

[JonC]

That does look like what is going on in Romans 9 and Acts 13. But too many other passages have Paul himself discussing works as opposed to faith. When works vs faith is so clearly put forth by Paul himself I find it hard to believe that the Reformers were only thinking of the RC's.

I'm not arguing for NT Wright. I think he is incorrect (an extreme reaction to one error of the Reformers).
I think of it this way - But I can't disagree with him that works evidence that one truely belong to the people of God (as a group).

1. Scripture repeatedly tells us that the Jews believed they were God's chosen people based on their ethnicity (they believed Jews were chosen as a nation). They did not believe they had to earn this status.

2. Wright is correct that one part of Paul's argument is in fact about how non-Jewish people enter into the "people of God". But there seems to be a difference between works-salvation and what it means to be of God's people. I believe Scripture addresses this throughout.

3. Wright is correct that the Reformers understood justification in context of their struggle against the Roman Catholic Church. They essentially combined everything into a works or faith context.

4. I agree with Wright that the Jew believed by virtue of birth he was in a Covenant relationship with God, but that he would inherit either a curse or a blessing. This is why the Jew asked "what must I do to be saved".

So I agree with the 15th and 16th non-Catholic baptistic Christians and Wright that the Reformers made a mistake (one of seeing a similarly between their struggle against the Roman Catholic Church and the Christian struggle against 1st century Jewish ideas regarding justification that didn't exist). But that is human nature, so we can't fault the Reformers. We always put the past in our context.

I disagree with Wright's conclusions. He has not proved his point.

 

[TheOneWhoLives]

This context?

Look down two verses, Gilligan.

Romans 2:17 - Behold, thou art called a Jew, and restest in the law, and makest thy boast of God

Is Paul talking about the same law here?

Are you so brutish that you're unable to discern that the two are synonymous?

If you think that the Mosaic law and the spiritual law are the same things, I don’t know what else to tell you. Maybe you can ask The Skipper and see what he says.

 

[Piper 2]

He has some very good books. But I tried to read his books on justification....and gave up. He makes a good case against some traditional views regarding the 1st century understsnding of justification).

NT Wright does believe penal substitution, but believes the traditional penal substitution view got a few things wrong.

I found a couple of things interesting:

NT Wright believes that the Reformers misunderstood the 1st century by putting themselves in the place of 1st century Jews (if you think about it, the Jewish understanding of justification follows exactly the Reforner vs Roman Catholic Church issue). He makes a good point in that it should be considered. That said, it could be a coincidence (sometimes history repeats itself).

NT Wright correctly observed that many (like JI Packer and John Piper) made the comment that their position has been established since the Reformation and should not be challenged....but this is exactly what the Reformers did with established Catholic doctrine.

John Piper (in his book addressing NT Wright) wrote that NT Wright may be correct but it would be too complicated to teach so it should be dismissed until it coukd be articulated in a more teachable way. I did not like that reasoning. But I do like John Piper (he is one of my favorites).

Piper wrote an absolutely perfect refutation of Wright's view of Justification. I have read it twice.

 

[Piper 2]

And yet many Baptists and even some Reformed seem to agree with his views

I know. It's a shame.

 

[kyredneck]

Romans 2:17 - Behold, thou art called a Jew, and restest in the law, and makest thy boast of God

Is Paul talking about the same law here?

You are missing the gist of "in the spirit not in the letter", two totally different covenants. It's EVERY MAN, Jew and Gentile, circumcision and uncircumcision, that this pertains to:

5 but after thy hardness and impenitent heart treasurest up for thyself wrath in the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God;
6 who will render to every man according to his works:
7 to them that by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and incorruption, eternal life:
8 but unto them that are factious, and obey not the truth, but obey unrighteousness, shall be wrath and indignation,
9 tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that worketh evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Greek;
10 but glory and honor and peace to every man that worketh good, to the Jew first, and also to the Greek:
11 for there is no respect of persons with God.
12 For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without the law: and as many as have sinned under the law shall be judged by the law;
13 for not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified:
14 (for when Gentiles that have not the law do by nature the things of the law, these, not having the law, are the law unto themselves;
15 in that they show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness therewith, and their thoughts one with another accusing or else excusing them);
16 in the day when God shall judge the secrets of men, according to my gospel, by Jesus Christ.
17 But if thou bearest the name of a Jew, and restest upon the law, and gloriest in God,
18 and knowest his will, and approvest the things that are excellent, being instructed out of the law,
19 and art confident that thou thyself art a guide of the blind, a light of them that are in darkness,
20 a corrector of the foolish, a teacher of babes, having in the law the form of knowledge and of the truth;
21 thou therefore that teachest another, teachest thou not thyself? thou that preachest a man should not steal, dost thou steal?
22 thou that sayest a man should not commit adultery, dost thou commit adultery? thou that abhorrest idols, dost thou rob temples?
23 thou who gloriest in the law, through thy transgression of the law dishonorest thou God?
24 For the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you, even as it is written.
25 For circumcision indeed profiteth, if thou be a doer of the law: but if thou be a transgressor of the law, thy circumcision is become uncircumcision.
26 If therefore the uncircumcision keep the ordinances of the law, shall not his uncircumcision be reckoned for circumcision?
27 and shall not the uncircumcision which is by nature, if it fulfil the law, judge thee, who with the letter and circumcision art a transgressor of the law?
28 For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision which is outward in the flesh:
29 but he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.
1 What advantage then hath the Jew? or what is the profit of circumcision?

 

[kyredneck]

justification is ALWAYS by faith.

By this, do you mean that justification is always by man's choice? (Many, if not most Christians consider faith to be nothing more than their choice, their will, their decision, is this you?)

I notice you didn't say 'justification is ALWAYS by faith alone'.

Please try to keep your reply <1000 words, I've a short attention span.

 

[percho]

Could it be that?

Justification is out of faith, of God, and that through the Spirit we are being created [born from above] to walk unto good works.

Is that Paul's thought?

 

[TheOneWhoLives]

You are missing the gist of "in the spirit not in the letter", two totally different covenants. It's EVERY MAN, Jew and Gentile, circumcision and uncircumcision, that this pertains to:

You are missing the gist of Paul’s argument that the Jews sought justification by the deeds of the law and the distinction is clearly made between that and the law that is written on the heart of the Gentiles. Whether you’re a Jew or Gentile, the law has to be written on the heart. I get that.

 

[kyredneck]

Whether you’re a Jew or Gentile, the law has to be written on the heart. I get that.

Finally. I'm glad for you.

 

[kyredneck]

Is that Paul's thought?

Paul taught that faith is not of the creature (not of ourselves), it is a fruit of the Spirit (it is the gift of God):

22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, Gal 5

 

[JesusFan]

Again, I have mot read much of Wright on this topic BUT I have read enough to know this is not exactly what he was saying.

From reading what I have of Wright, he views this "marking out" as you say to be a present sign of a future state (that we experience ultimately experience being declared righteous towards God at Judgment day).

I disagree with Wright, but I also disagree when people mistepresent other people's beliefs.

The truth is that He hates the concept of saying that God the Father judged Jesus as accepting for our sake our wrath and punishment's, as thinks that would be a pagan concept, hates that the Father Imputed Jesus rightiousness to our behalf, and hates Pauline Justification, so he should not be viewed as being at all either Pauline Justification in Reformed or Baptist sense.

 

[JesusFan]

Any theologians is very dangerous when people blindly accept what they ate told.

I like the late RC Sproul. But his view of the Cross is very dangerous and has resulted in many abandoning the church because his teachings don't always line up with Scripture.

I don't know how NT Wright aligns with Mormons or Jehovah Witnesses (I've studied those cults more than I have NT Wright), but I have the suspension you are bearing a false witness against another Christoan due to a disagreement. I'll look and see what Wright says about wrath in order to dismiss or confirm my suspicion.

Wright is not saying at all Reformed nor Baptist Atonement theology . but redefying the terms once again and different vested meanings

 

[JesusFan]

One reason I don't trust NT Wright on this topic is he isolates Pauline Theology from God's Word. Actually, so do you.

Paul did not invent "justification/righteousness". Paul merely wrote on what was already there.

But Pauline Justification Theology is inspired, in the background of Penal Substitution as seen by framework of Sacrificial OT system and the Suffering Servant of Isaiah, not of what NT Wright redefines in his atonement theology