Wright is Wrong on Justification

[Greektim]

That's fine, Martin, no apologies needed. When we defend a part of another's position, or another's scholarship and faith in general, it is sometimes taken for granted that we share the same views.

I'm going to answer your question two ways. First, I believe Wright has made a cardinal error in that he has broken the rule of tradition. Many will object to biblical views contrary to their tradition, thought, or interpretation as being unbiblical doctrine. For example, when I argued a meaning for "forsaken" other than a separation between the Father and Son on the cross, I had made what was in your view a cardinal error. N.T. Wright certainly does this.

But second, in terms of orthodox Christianity, or even Reformed theology in general, I do not believe there is a cardinal error one can put their finger upon. There are differences in interpretation, but there is no such error. The reason that I disagree with Wright is that I do not think he has evidenced his position well enough to accept. Indeed, Wright even says as much (and states his desire is dialogue and research on the topic).

In truth, I am not confident that most here would entertain the doctrine of Luther were we alive during the Reformation and steeped in Catholic dogma. I am, actually, pretty sure many here would have sought to have Luther executed for his views. When our beliefs are challenged we get defensive - not because our beliefs are biblical but because they are our beliefs.

What I do take from Wright, more than his conclusions, are the questions he asks. I believe there are areas where we seem to present the first century Jew as a sixteenth century Roman Catholic. It is difficult to fathom these similarities as being merely coincidental. So I do see merit in his investigation although I do not necessarily accept his conclusions.

As Wright pointed out: "The greatest honor we can pay the Reformers is not to treat them as infallible - they would be horrified at that - but to do as they did."

I believe the same of C.S. Lewis, Karl Barth, Martin Luther, John Owen, Joel Beeke, and Tim Keller (all of whom I have both read and appreciate but also disagree on some point). We all seem to think that everyone else is wrong on at least one thing. We are all probably right. Read, study, learn...but do so with discernment. Take what is good, leave what is bad. But we need to stop making villains out of saints.

More or less... what he said!

 

[Greektim]

According to Luther, the Doctrine of Justification is the doctrine by which the Church stands or falls. Wright would sweep away not just justification as the Church of God has known it since the Reformation, but also imputation and the active obedience of Christ, and probably assurance as well. So in my opinion, yes, it is that bad, and all the worse because he is so plausible. I do not like the words 'damnable' and 'heresy' and I never use them, but Wright's teachings are utterly destructive of sound doctrine and I would implore you and JonC to look at them again with fresh eyes and to reject them.

'Thus says the LORD: "Stand in the ways and see, and ask for the old paths, where the good way is, and walk in it; then you will find rest for your souls"' (Jeremiah 6:16).

I'd be ok if imputation was re-evaluated. I see our right standing before God, that alien righteousness, as coming to us not via imputation but through union with Christ. That's for a different thread, however.

I guess what frustrates me is that the latest quote of Wright above doesn't seem all that destructive to sound doctrine. It actually sounds a lot like Ephesians 2. In fact, Wright has stated that if the reformers based their view of justification more from Eph. and less from Rom & Gal, then this wouldn't be a new perspective at all (rough paraphrase of course; can't recall the source, I'll dig it later if need be). It seems like his conclusions, when properly understood with full quotations of Wright's remarks, aren't all that bad to me. I've not seen the need for the tar and feathers that so many want to cover him with.

 

[The Biblicist]

If I understand your correctly, in short his position would be "damnable" at the onset because he is Anglican.

I don't care what title a person, church or denomination may wear (Anglican, Catholic, Baptist, etc.). If it teaches that one becomes a new creature through ordinances (thus sacraments) then they are teaching and practicing "another gospel" and that is damnable by Biblical definition or do the words "let him be accursed" mean anything?

W.R. Wright teaches sacramental salvation as he explicitly states that one enters into covenant life and covenant community, and becomes a new creation through baptism and the Lord's Supper. That is a damnable doctrine that denies Christ.

 

[JonC]

I don't care what title a person, church or denomination may wear (Anglican, Catholic, Baptist, etc.). If it teaches that one becomes a new creature through ordinances (thus sacraments) then they are teaching and practicing "another gospel" and that is damnable by Biblical definition or do the words "let him be accursed" mean anything?

W.R. Wright teaches sacramental salvation as he explicitly states that one enters into covenant life and covenant community, and becomes a new creation through baptism and the Lord's Supper. That is a damnable doctrine that denies Christ.

Had you chosen to use “by” rather than “through”, then I would have agreed that it is another gospel, but disagreed that it was held by those you condemn here. Here are a couple of points, brother.

First, Wright does not teach sacramental salvation (that we are saved by such sacraments). Second, you are magnifying the Anglican (or even Lutheran) view of sacrament in terms of Wright’s position of Justification (his view is not dependent on sacrament).

But more importantly, you are teaching another gospel than is presented in scripture. None of those you condemn here (Anglican or Lutheran) teach sacrament as salvific. What you are teaching is that salvation through faith alone is invalidated if a man holds the error of believing sacrament as a means. It’s the same argument some make against those who would “invite Jesus into their hearts.” While such a “invitation” may be error, it is not so accursed as the teaching that their explanation somehow nullifies the gospel itself. I agree sacrament is error. And you suggest that an Anglicans and Lutherans are not saved because believing in the same gospel they erroneous think God uses a sacramental means. Their explanation is wrong, but not as wrong as your conclusion they are not saved. Your proclamation in this post is the only error that approaches "another gospel", not in what it affirms but in what it denies.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

I'm going to answer your question two ways. First, I believe Wright has made a cardinal error in that he has broken the rule of tradition. Many will object to biblical views contrary to their tradition, thought, or interpretation as being unbiblical doctrine. For example, when I argued a meaning for "forsaken" other than a separation between the Father and Son on the cross, I had made what was in your view a cardinal error. N.T. Wright certainly does this.

But second, in terms of orthodox Christianity, or even Reformed theology in general, I do not believe there is a cardinal error upon which one can place a finger.

If you think that I was arguing in favour of Penal Substitution because of 'tradition,' then obviously I have completely wasted long hours in discussion with you.
However, I find it telling, though not at all unexpected, that although you claim not to be a supporter of Wright, when pressed, you can find nothing wrong with his theories.

 

[Craigbythesea]

W.R. Wright teaches sacramental salvation as he explicitly states that one enters into covenant life and covenant community, and becomes a new creation through baptism and the Lord's Supper. That is a damnable doctrine that denies Christ.

W.T. Wright (not W.R. Wright) has in his camp not only the whole of the Greek Fathers of the Church, but the whole of the Latin Fathers of the Church—not to mention the large majority of Christians today, including some Baptists who choose to believe the Apostle Peter rather than their Baptist forefathers. Indeed, if Wright’s doctrine is damnable, until some Christians came along in the 17th century and invented a new and novel doctrine of justification and called themselves “Baptists”, all Christians were heretics on their way to hell!

 

[JonC]

If you think that I was arguing in favour of Penal Substitution because of 'tradition,' then obviously I have completely wasted long hours in discussion with you.
However, I find it telling, though not at all unexpected, that although you claim not to be a supporter of Wright, when pressed, you can find nothing wrong with his theories.

If you think that I was arguing in favour of Penal Substitution because of 'tradition,' then obviously I have completely wasted long hours in discussion with you.
However, I find it telling, though not at all unexpected, that although you claim not to be a supporter of Wright, when pressed, you can find nothing wrong with his theories.

I am not sure what I said to have warranted this post. I didn't think you were arguing for penal substitution theory out of tradition, Martin. I didn't even know we were arguing penal substitution at all. I assume that you owe your beliefs to scripture (as do I). And I don't know your tradition, brother.

I am wondering, however, if you are not grasping at heresies in an attempt to denounce another because you simply do not like what others have said of his ideas. I say this because of your introduction of penal substitution. It seems to me that you may be looking under every rock to condemn another Christian. As I recall, Wright often emphasizes Christus Victor theory but he has been strong in affirming penal substitution as well. Regardless, I would not condemn Wright if he held otherwise. The gospel in which I believe is stronger than such things. In fact, the gospel that I hold can stand up to disagreements without crumbling (even N.T. Wright's disagreements).

I find it telling that you take my explanation that I've rejected N.T. Wright's conclusions because I do not think he's proved his point and turn it into some accusation that I've not found anything wrong with his theories.

I don't understand why we can't simply recognize disagreement, and look at each other's views, without feeling compelled to condemn or criticise the other person. It seems wrong to me to view other Christians hatefully.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

I don't understand why we can't simply recognize disagreement, and look at each other's views, without feeling compelled to condemn or criticise the other person. It seems wrong to me to view other Christians hatefully.

Whom are you accusing me of hating? Yourself or Wright? I assure you that I hate neither. I believe that Wright's teachings are very seriously wrong, and because they touch upon the Gospel, they may lead other people away from Christ. Therefore I will oppose them as strongly as I can for as long as I can. I hate no one. OK?

I'm going to answer your question two ways. First, I believe Wright has made a cardinal error in that he has broken the rule of tradition. Many will object to biblical views contrary to their tradition, thought, or interpretation as being unbiblical doctrine. For example, when I argued a meaning for "forsaken" other than a separation between the Father and Son on the cross, I had made what was in your view a cardinal error. N.T. Wright certainly does this.

If that did not mean that I objected to your view on P.S. because of tradition, then what on earth does it mean?

 

[kyredneck]

I believe that Wright's teachings are very seriously wrong, and because they touch upon the Gospel, they may lead other people away from Christ. Therefore I will oppose them as strongly as I can for as long as I can.

http://www.baptistboard.com/threads/understanding-preterism.97542/page-4#post-2217054

Intolerant sort aren't you?

 

[JonC]

Whom are you accusing me of hating? Yourself or Wright? I assure you that I hate neither. I believe that Wright's teachings are very seriously wrong, and because they touch upon the Gospel, they may lead other people away from Christ. Therefore I will oppose them as strongly as I can for as long as I can. I hate no one. OK?

If that did not mean that I objected to your view on P.S. because of tradition, then what on earth does it mean?

I apologize, brother. Sometimes I forget words can be assumed to have unintended meanings. By "hateful" I mean do not mean you hate anyone. Your words fo, however, seem to me to express an unpleasant demeanour towards Wright...and me...and a disdain for doctrines that you reject. I love I'm the southern US. We use the word hateful often, but rarely if ever to mean genuine hate. I am sorry for the misunderstanding.

What I was wondering is how penal substitution even entered the thread. I didn't bring it up. As far as I know, penal substitution is not even being challenged here. Why are you throwing penal substitution in the mix? Are you claiming Wright denied Christ died a substitutionary death? Do you have proof of this?

 

[JamesL]

Hello James! Paul puts a theological definition on justification with regards to Christ. He clearly states what it is not and what it is. That is putting a theological definition on it. He says we are justified "without works" and He says we are justified "by faith" "by grace" and that places a theological definition upon it. Paul has a distinct DOCTRINE of justification and that is a "view."

Hi Biblicist. Great discussion so far, btw

But I disagree with your assessments. Paul didn't put a theological definition on just, justified, justification...

He put that ordinary word into a theological context, thereby broadening the application.

Just simply means "right"
Justified means "proven right" or "declared right" or "made right"

In Romans alone, Paul uses "just" or a derivative of it in at least 3 different contexts.

Proven right in being rewarded, declared right in acquittal, and made right in being resurrected.

Wright equally uses the term justification within some definable boundaries (opposite to Paul).

I'm no Wright scholar for sure, but I've read some of his short papers. Here's what I see:

I applaud him for seeing that the Protestant view of justification is greatly lacking.

But he makes the same error as Protestants by confusing definition and application

Both taking a backward approach of trying to define it from its application rather than determining the application from the definition

 

[The Biblicist]

Had you chosen to use “by” rather than “through”, then I would have agreed that it is another gospel, but disagreed that it was held by those you condemn here. Here are a couple of points, brother.

First, Wright does not teach sacramental salvation (that we are saved by such sacraments).

You are wrong, he most certainly does if his words mean anything. You cannot use the language he uses and avoid that conclusion if that language is defined by its true Biblical meaning. Of course, if you choose to ignore the Biblical meaning of such language then dialog is hopeless.

Second, you are magnifying the Anglican (or even Lutheran) view of sacrament in terms of Wright’s position of Justification (his view is not dependent on sacrament).

You are making distinctions the Bible does not make. The Biblical error of "another gospel" within its Biblical context is the confusion of sanctification with justification. Now, whether you choose to acknowledge that makes no difference to me, because it does not change that fact. Indeed, the whole crux of the debate here is the failure of some on this forum to acknowledge that "another gospel" is precisely sanctification replacing and/or mixing with the justification.

But more importantly, you are teaching another gospel than is presented in scripture. None of those you condemn here (Anglican or/Lutheran) teach sacrament as salvific. What you are teaching is that salvation through faith alone is invalidated if a man holds the error of believing sacrament as a means.

Again, you are wrong on both counts. I am dealing with the soteriological position and judging it to be another gospel. I am not standing in judgment upon the individual's eternal destiny. A person can be theologically in error and yet saved. However, that does not change the fact that the error may be another gospel. Second, you simply don't understand what is "another gospel" in the Galatians context. The precise error that Paul calls "another gospel" is the addition or subtraction from the complete satisfaction provided by Christ IN HIS OWN BODY as our substitute. Anything added to his complete satisfaction OUTSIDE of what was finished in his own body IN ORDER TO COMPLETE justification is another gospel, as it is a rejection of His finished work. Anything subtracted from his finished work in his own body with regard to the complete satisfaction of all the demands of the law against sin and sinners is another gospel.

It’s the same argument some make against those who would “invite Jesus into their hearts.” While such a “invitation” may be error, it is not so accursed as the teaching that their explanation somehow nullifies the gospel itself.

Again, you confuse the individual with the doctrine. A person may be mentally led astray and embrace a false doctrine, but that does not make the doctrine any less false even though the individual may be actually saved. The Galatians had been mentally led astray in rejecting grace, and embracing "another gospel" and yet they were still saved and simply needed instruction, but that did not make what they embraced the true gospel, it was still another gospel.

BTW it is not the same error as inviting Christ into your heart. The Bible speaks of receiving Christ. It may be error to believe that such an invitation is necessary for regeneration, but such an error does not change the nature or content of the gospel. However, Paul makes it clear in Romans 4:9-11 that justification would be altered by making circumcision (divine ordinances) inclusive of justification (sacramentalism).

I agree sacrament is error. And you suggest that an Anglicans and Lutherans are not saved because believing in the same gospel they erroneous think God uses a sacramental means. Their explanation is wrong, but not as wrong as your conclusion they are not saved. Your proclamation in this post is the only error that approaches "another gospel", not in what it affirms but in what it denies.

Again, you confuse the individual status of a person with the error. The sacramental error is "another gospel" but a person can be led astray, as were the Galatians, and still be individually saved.

W.T. Wright teaches "another gospel" a sacramental gospel foreign to the scriptures. He teaches "another gospel" with regard to his view of justification as far as I am concerned. However, with regard to his own person, he may be a truly saved individual, but no doubt theologically messed up.

 

[The Biblicist]

Hi Biblicist. Great discussion so far, btw

But I disagree with your assessments. Paul didn't put a theological definition on just, justified, justification...

He put that ordinary word into a theological context, thereby broadening the application.

Just simply means "right"
Justified means "proven right" or "declared right" or "made right"

I never intended you to think that he changed the etymological or connotational meaning of the term. However, Paul has a very well defined doctrine of justification just as Catholics do, and W.T. Wright does, and Methodist do. The Galatians were taught a wrong view about justification.

I don't think anyone believes he changed the meaning of the term. However, it is not the meaning of the term that is being debated. What is being debated is how that term is being applied by Paul to Christ and His finished work. That term can be used in a context so that its very Biblical application is negated.

 

[The Biblicist]

I'd be ok if imputation was re-evaluated. I see our right standing before God, that alien righteousness, as coming to us not via imputation but through union with Christ. That's for a different thread

Yes, that would be a great subject for another thread as I see lots of problems for the spiritual "union with Christ" theory with regard to justification and with regard to the nature of the church.

 

[The Biblicist]

W.T. Wright (not W.R. Wright) has in his camp not only the whole of the Greek Fathers of the Church, but the whole of the Latin Fathers of the Church—not to mention the large majority of Christians today, including some Baptists who choose to believe the Apostle Peter rather than their Baptist forefathers. Indeed, if Wright’s doctrine is damnable, until some Christians came along in the 17th century and invented a new and novel doctrine of justification and called themselves “Baptists”, all Christians were heretics on their way to hell!

I have not had the pleasure to exchange thoughts with you prior to this moment. Let me start with simply asking you some questions so that I may understand where you are coming from. You must confess to be a "Baptist" or you couldn't engage in this part of the forum. So, are you claiming that baptism and the Lord's Supper are sacramental in nature? To be more precise, are you claiming that you enter into the covenant relationship with God, thus the covenant community of God's people through or by means of baptism? Do you believe justifying grace is imparted or sustained through partaking of the Lord's Supper? I am simply trying to establish your views since your post seems to imply that you embrace those views.

 

[JonC]

I believe doctrines and ideas are becoming convoluted here and we are talking past each other. I agree we are to accept Wright as a believer. I agree his view has issues. I agree he holds Anglican views. I disagre that his view of justification depends on a sacramental understanding. My argument was also that belief in the gospel while ak so believing grace is experienced through sacrament does not change the gospel (it is not another gospel). Belief that salvation is by (a result of) sacrament is another gospel. We disagree about a view neither of us holds . Whooo de do.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G530A using Tapatalk

 

[The Biblicist]

I believe doctrines and ideas are becoming convoluted here and we are talking past each other. I agree we are to accept Wright as a believer. I agree his view has issues. I agree he holds Anglican views. I disagre that his view of justification depends on a sacramental understanding. My argument was also that belief in the gospel while ak so believing grace is experienced through sacrament does not change the gospel (it is not another gospel). Belief that salvation is by (a result of) sacrament is another gospel. We disagree about a view neither of us holds . Whooo de do.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G530A using Tapatalk

I don't think I said his view of justification depends on a sacramental understanding. I believe what I said is that his view of justification will lead to, and will be consistent with his sacramental understanding.

 

[The Biblicist]

My argument was also that belief in the gospel while ak so believing grace is experienced through sacrament does not change the gospel (it is not another gospel). Belief that salvation is by (a result of) sacrament is another gospel. We disagree about a view neither of us holds . Whooo de do.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G530A using Tapatalk

Wright is not saying that believing grace is "experienced" through sacraments (although no doubt he believes that also). He is explicitly saying that it is through sacraments that covenant LIFE is received and one becomes part of the covenant community through sacraments. He claims that it is only by exceptions to the general rule that anyone can come into a covenant relationship with God apart from baptism. Remember, his statement is found under covenant "LIFE" and it is this "LIFE" that is received through the sacrament of baptism.

".And all the multiple layers of meaning that were already present in baptism were to be recentered on the event of Jesus’ death and resurrection. Through the water into God’s new world.....Easter is not Jesus getting to heaven when he died. Easter is Jesus’ newly embodied life launching God’s new creation through the water of death....Baptism is the ground on which we stand linked to Jesus. His dying and rising and the power of his victory are ours because we are his. But if you imagine that you can get that power without that identity, well, good luck!" - W.T. Wright (Baptized into New Life) - http://www.reformedworship.org/article/december-2008/n-t-wright-word-and-sacraments-baptism

 

[JonC]

I don't think I said his view of justification depends on a sacramental understanding. I believe what I said is that his view of justification will lead to, and will be consistent with his sacramental understanding.

I disagree it will lead to sacrament, or that sacrament is a valid criteria to even use. I agree it is consistent with his view.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G530A using Tapatalk

 

[The Biblicist]

I disagree it will lead to sacrament, or that sacrament is a valid criteria to even use. I agree it is consistent with his view.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G530A using Tapatalk

You agree it is consistent with his view of justification. Good! Now lets talk about our disagreement. If you agree his view of the sacraments is consistent with his view of justification, then his view of justification is inseparably confused with the Biblical view of progressive sanctification as that is the Biblical view where ordinances exist. That confusion is precisely what Paul is repudiating in Romans 4:9-11. If justification was inclusive of the ordinances than justification would be with works done in our bodies instead of "without works" and that is the difference between the truth of the gospel and "another gospel" in the book of Galatians.