Featured Wright is Wrong on Justification

By the way, as a matter of proper respect, can we please stop calling him W. T. Wright. His name is N. T. Wright.

 

If it were true that I have condemned Baptists as a group, it would also be true that I have condemned myself! I am a died-in-the-wool Baptist, and I have been a died-in-the-wool Baptist ever since the day that I was baptized in the Holy Spirit! Moreover, I do not condemn anyone!

The fact that Acts 2:38 and 1 Peter 3:20-21 teach that water Baptism, when it is “an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,” results in the salvation of the recipients was not seriously challenged until the early part of the 17th century. Therefore, to call this interpretation “the Roman Catholic traditional interpretation” is decidedly inaccurate. Indeed, this interpretation has been, and continues to be, the interpretation of the Church as a whole, with the exception of those Christians who, because of their Baptist traditions, deny what is explicitly taught in the Bible,

1 Peter 3:18. For Christ also died for sins once for all, the just for the unjust, so that He might bring us to God, having been put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit;
19. in which also He went and made proclamation to the spirits now in prison,
20. who once were disobedient, when the patience of God kept waiting in the days of Noah, during the construction of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through the water.
21. Corresponding to that, baptism now saves you—not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience--through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,
22. who is at the right hand of God, having gone into heaven, after angels and authorities and powers had been subjected to Him.

Peter finds here a correspondence between the water of the flood and the water of baptism. The water of the flood lifted the Ark and the eight persons aboard it up out the sinful world that was being destroyed. Corresponding to that, water baptism, when it is not merely the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience, now saves us.

Peter sees salvation being accomplished through water baptism. Paul apparently did also,

Titus 3:4. But when the kindness of God our Savior and His love for mankind appeared,
5. He saved us, not on the basis of deeds which we have done in righteousness, but according to His mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit,
6. whom He poured out upon us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior,
7. so that being justified by His grace we would be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life.

Paul clearly states here that God our Savior “saved us… by the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit.” Paul and Peter were both Jews, and to a Jew washing with water for spiritual cleaning and water baptism were very closely related to each other. The very large majority of New Testament scholars believe that both Paul and Peter taught that water baptism is effectual for the salvation, and the Early Church Fathers taught that God’s Grace for salvation was conferred upon believers through water baptism. This appears to me to have been the case in the Early Church, not as the exclusive means of conferring grace, but as the typical means. In Acts 10:44, we find a definite exception, and it appears to me that the exception has become the norm in our Baptist churches and other churches that hold to Baptist traditions.

(All quotations from the Scriptures are from the NASB, 1995)

I have heard 1001 Baptists make similar statements—statements that demonstrate that they do not even know what the Roman Catholic Church teaches about justification by faith. And so, for those who do not know what the Roman Catholic Church really teaches about justification by faith, here it is in a nutshell:

The Saint Joseph Edition of the New American Bible (1971) has the following note on Rom. 3:21-31,

The justice of God is his mercy whereby he declares guilty man innocent and makes him so. He does this, not as a result of the Law, but apart from it (v 21), not because of any merit of man, but through forgiveness of his sins (v 24)in virtue of the redemption wrought in Christ Jesus for all who believe (22-24f), No man can boast of his own holiness, since it is God’s free gift (27), both to the Jew who practices circumcision out of faith, and to the Gentile who accepts faith without the Old Testament religious culture symbolized by circumcision (29f).​

The Saint Joseph Edition of the New American Bible with the second edition of the New Testament (1986) has the following note on Rom. 3:21-31,

These verses provide a clear statement of Paul’s “gospel,” i.e., the principle of justification by faith in Christ. God has found a means of rescuing humanity from its desperate plight: Paul’s general term for this divine initiative is the righteousness of God (21). Divine mercy declares the guilty innocent and makes them so. God does this not as a result of the law but apart from it (21), and not because of any merit in human beings but through forgiveness of their sins (24), in virtue of the redemption wrought in Christ Jesus for all who believe (22.24-25). God has manifested his righteousness in the coming of Jesus Christ, whose saving activity inaugurates a new era in human history.​

The Saint Joseph Edition of the New American Bible with the second edition of the New Testament (1986) has the following note on Rom. 4:3,

Jas 2, 24 appears to conflict with Paul’s statement. However, James combats the error of extremists who used the doctrine of justification through faith as a screen for moral self-determination. Paul discusses the subject of holiness in greater detail than does James and beginning with ch 6 shows how justification through faith introduces one to the gift of a new life in Christ through the power of the Holy Spirit.​

Yes, this is a Roman Catholic Bible with Roman Catholic notes published by the Catholic Book Publishing Company in New York with both the Imprimatur and the Nihil Obstat.

The Bible is the very foundation of my life, and has been my life’s work for more than 20 years. Therefore, I reject the non-scriptural Baptist traditions in favor of the Scriptures.

 

Thank you for this information. I have always known him as Tom Wright, and simply picked up his first initial from the O.P. without giving it a thought.

 

I know nothing of this Bible, but it doesn't seem (to put it mildly) to accord with the Roman Catholic Catechism or with the Council of Trent.

 

When the New American Bible was first published in 1970, the paternal Apostolic Blessing was officially bestowed upon it by the Holy See and on September 18, 1970, Pope Paul VI personally signed the document in which this Blessing was officially bestowed.

 

Yes, I fully agree. Even the Westminster Confession worries me when it speaks about infant baptism. It is difficult not to read into it baptismal regeneration. It seems the Federal Vision has taken the Presbyterian position to its logical conclusion.

 

Returning to the quote attributed to NT Wright, "justification is the declaration that somebody is in the right. It is a term borrowed from the lawcourt—that is what people mean when they say it is 'forensic'. 2 In the lawcourt, justification is the judge's verdict in favour of one party or the other (cases in Jewish law were simply between accuser and accused, there being no Director of Public Prosecutions). The basic meaning of the term is therefore not 'forgiveness': a favourable verdict implies that justice, not (at this stage) mercy, is being carried out. Nor is 'acquittal' quite strong enough: justification has a positive sense, indicating not merely absence of guilt but a positive standing in the right. This status is termed 'righteousness', which in this context does not refer primarily to the character or morals of the person concerned, but simply to his status in the court on the basis of the judge's declaration. Justification is the judge's verdict that someone is in the right. Righteousness is the status before the court which results from that declaration."

I have always liked the illustration of digging a hole, or from a spiritual view, a pit in hell. We start out, shovel in hand, conceived in that hole (in iniquity). If we live long enough and are not mentally challenged, we use our shovel and dig. Now the "dirt" that we toss out can be thought of as righteousness. Every time we sin, we remove righteousness. Every careless word, every time we treat others differently than we want to be treated, even the time we waste watching Star Trek.

Now how are we removed from that "realm of darkness?" Who takes that shovel away and gives us the brick and mortar and trowel to build on the foundation of Christ? God puts us "in Christ" where we are continually forgiven, continually viewed by God as not digging, thus always righteous. Now from our perspective we see that we stumble, that we miss the mark, that we do not measure up to Christ's standard. Thus we evaluate ourselves, and pick up our cross, and follow Him.

Note that this view of "justification" does not claim we are "declared righteous" but "made righteous." To paraphrase, Righteousness before God is the status we have after God places us "in Christ" and have undergone the circumcision of Christ. Although some of us might have a warped sense of Christ-like behavior, we all committed to strive to become more like Christ. But no matter our flaws, we are covered by the precious blood of Christ. And in God's eyes, we are therefore holy, blameless, justified, perfect and righteous.

 

What is this, revive tired worn out threads week?

 

I thought we were to be laying bricks, not throwing them at other flawed bricklayers.

 

NT Wright refuses to accept the truth of penal substitution as the primary aspect of the Cross, and instead seems to be the Cross more of the example of God getting victory over his enemies, and of the enemies of his people.

he states that Jesus died due to sins of the Roman Empire and its evil, and in that sense died for sins of the people.

He also would hold that one gets water bappotized in order to enter the Kingdom, and that God has to doa verdict on your life in the end to see and determine if lived rightly enough.

And his views on paul would have to be stating to us that from calvin and Luthor forward, we ALL gor paul wrong, and he got him right, as paul NEVER per Wright addressed the issue of how a sinners becomes saved, but from the point of view now since saved...

And he seems to take thview that Judaism of time of jesus not nearly as bad as jesus and paul made it out to be!

 

LOL, Biblicist, your assessment of my illustration lacks comprehension. The illustration is about how we are taken out of the realm of darkness. In our unsaved, unjustified condition all our works are as filthy rags, but once we arise in Christ, a new creation created for good works we are given brick and mortar and trowel. Basic Christian doctrine should not be difficult to grasp.

So yet again you post name calling assertions (Roman Catholic doctrine of justification) devoid of any basis in reality.

Here it is again: Note that this view of "justification" does not claim we are "declared righteous" but "made righteous." To paraphrase, Righteousness before God is the status we have after God places us "in Christ" and have undergone the circumcision of Christ. Although some of us might have a warped sense of Christ-like behavior, we all committed to strive to become more like Christ. But no matter our flaws, we are covered by the precious blood of Christ. And in God's eyes, we are therefore holy, blameless, justified, perfect and righteous.