Join My Community!
-
Google+ Join My Circle of Friends
Tag Archives: Justification
R.C. Sproul, N.T. Wright and the Scarecrow
Wright: "Aren't we on the same team?" Sproul: "It depends, define 'sola fide' and then define 'Gospel'."
A few years back I must have been the only person oblivious to the horrendous massacre of the Munich Olympics of 1972. When in conversation a friend mentioned the movie, Munich (2006), I asked what it was about, and in shock he said “Don’t you know? It’s when Muslim terrorists murdered Jewish athletes at the 1972 Olympics in Munich.” But we were both caught off guard when another friend my mine, a Muslim, overheard our conversation and roared out through clenched teeth the way a father might chastise his children: “THEY WERE NOT TERRORISTS! IT WAS WAR! THOSE JEWISH ATHLETES WERE SOLDIERS WHO WOULD HAVE KILLED MUSLIMS AFTER THE OLYMPICS!” Then, as if nothing happened, he just walked away, leaving us staring at each other in perplexed silence.
The Olympics are supposed to be a time of peace. Everyone knows that. But for those Muslim terrorists, there is no such thing as “truce”. The context never changes. Time never goes by. “Kill the infidel!”
If this short-sighted mentality frustrates you as much as it does me, then you may be able to glimpse the frustration I have when leaders who are hailed as defenders of Reformed orthodoxy write and lecture as though the volatile age of the 16th century were alive and well. (“Anathema the Catholic!”) It is a mentality which needs to be crushed under the full weight of the true Gospel of Jesus Christ for the glory of Christ and the union of his Body: the Church invisible and visible.
These men – I believe – need to undergo a “gestalt switch”, nothing less then a complete paradigm shift.
In the book Justification in Perspective, N.T. Wright was invited to contribute to the last essay-chapter titled “New Perspectives” where he makes this comment which some have called “The King Kong of straw man fallacies”. Here’s what Wright wrote which “defenders of Reformed orthodoxy” find so offensive:
“We are not justified by faith by believing in justification by faith. We are justified by faith by believing in the gospel itself – in other words, that Jesus is Lord and that God raised him from the dead.” Wright, “New Perspectives” (Under the heading “5: Justification” in the essay.)
I cheer Wright for this bold statement. It was about time someone called the Reformers out on the carpet and exposed much of their rhetoric for what it is. What Wright is saying is that Catholic and Orthodox believers are as much a member of the family of God, the living Church, as are Protestants if (and the “if” goes for Protestants as well) they believe the Gospel of Jesus Christ: “that Jesus is Lord and that God raised him from the dead”.
Well of course the charge is an offensive one. In one fell swoop N.T. Wright has accused the Reformation Tradition (of which he is a part of, it is important to note) of raising 16th century “doctrine” above scripture, above the faith and above the Gospel. This is a deadly blow to the Reformers ego, and like any blow dealt to an ego, there was a backlash reaction. And so R.C. Sproul (who one blogger refers to as being “at the top end of the heavyweights” when it comes to Reformed theology) pushes back:
“To intimate that Protestant orthodoxy believes that we are justified by believing in the doctrine of justification by faith is the king of all straw men. It is the Goliath of scarecrow, the King Kong of straw man fallacies. In other words, it is a whopper. I am aware of no theologian in the history of the Reformation tradition who believes or argues that a person can be justified by believing in the doctrine of justification by faith. This is a pure and simple distortion of the Reformed tradition.” (Here)
But is that true? We have to look no further for our answer then to Mr. Heavyweight himself (in case you missed it, that’s a reference to R.C. Sproul) in a little tract called Justification by Faith Alone. In it he writes this:
“Since the Reformation the doctrine of sola fide has been the defining doctrine of evangelical Christianity. It has functioned as a normative doctrine because it has been understood as essential to the gospel itself. Without [the doctrine] sola fide one does not have the gospel; and without the gospel one does not have the Christian faith. When an ecclesiastical communion rejects [the doctrine] sola fide, as Rome did at the Council of Trent, it ceases being a true church, no matter how orthodox it may be in other matters.” – Justification by Faith Alone, p.12 (2010)
There is so much to say and so little time.
1) The doctrine of sola fide has NOT “been the defining doctrine of evangelical Christianity”. The defining doctrine of evangelical Christianity is sola scriptura (it is a sad day when we have to remind any Protestant of this fact). Pick up any book on Evangelical Christianity and you will not find a treaty there on sola fide (at least not in any central or defining way). You will find other points such as “missional” or “conversionism”, and centrally always “sola scriptura” (no matter how it is defined) but not sola fide:
“[Francis] Schaeffer said that an orthodox view of the Bible is the ‘Watershed of the Evangelical World’. In other words, it is a defining position, such that our view of Scripture determines whether or not we are truly evangelical. It seems to me that he was correct in this assessment.” A.T.B. McGowan, The Divine Authenticity of Scripture: Retrieving an Evangelical Heritage, p. 11
2) It is NOT true that without the doctrine of sola fide one does not have the Gospel. Nowhere in scripture is the Gospel defined as “sola fide”. But Paul explicitly defines the Gospel as believing in the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ (1 Corinthians 15:1-4) – as N.T. Wright correctly points out in his quote above. (This constitutes one of the fundamental areas of confusion among the traditionalists: confusing the terms “gospel” “justification” and “soteriology“.)
3) It is NOT true that by rejecting the doctrine of sola fide an ecclesial commune “ceases being a true church, no matter how orthodox it may be in other matters”. This last point is a very dangerous move on Sproul’s part because now he has explicitly raised up the Reformed doctrine of sola fide above the core belief of the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ! He subjugates this core orthodox belief (the True Gospel) to the sixteenth century doctrine of sola fide. Was there no “true church” before Luther? Sproul places the true Gosple of Jesus Christ (by which he “is being saved” 1 Corinthians 15:1-4) under the subcategory of “other matters” (as if you could tuck the Gospel away somewhere under the rubric of “other matters“?). God help him!:
I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting him who called you in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gosple – not that there is another one, but there are some who trouble you and want to distort the gospel of Christ. (Galatians 1:6-7, emphasis mine)
Sproul has distorted the Gosple by confusing the sixteenth century doctrine of sola fide with the Gosple Paul preaches in 1 Corinthians 15:1-4 and which he declares to be the true Gospel being distorted here in Galatians 1:6-9. A blogger named Cameron whom I have been in dialogue with states that God is not the author of confusion, “but maybe N.T. Wright is a good candidate“. N.T. Wright has offensively reminded the Reformers what the true Gospel is: belief in the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. If this truth has confused my friend Cameron, this should not reflect either God who wrote the Word or Wright who has been dragging the Reformers (kicking and screaming) back to the Word. I am not surprised that my friend Cameron has been confused by Wrights comment. If he has always believed an error, and someone writes to correct his error, before he capitulates to the truth his mind will be confused. This only reflects that he is either resisting the truth or about to overcome the presuppositions of his mind!
In any case this entire quote from R.C. Sproul, an influential leader in the Protestant church and author of such books as “Defending the Faith” and “The Consequences of Ideas”, is very scary. In the quote above Sproul writes: “I am aware of no theologian in the history of the Reformed tradition who believes or argues that a person can be justified by believing in the doctrine of justification by faith.” Perhaps he should have a good look in the mirror.
If N.T. Wright’s argument is a straw man, then R.C. Sproul is the scarecrow who is caught up in the time loop of 16th century polemics. Even the Catholic Church has moved on since then, acknowledging that other forms of orthodox Christianity are a part of the true church, while Sproul (like my Muslim friend) vehemently contends that because Trent (1559-1563) rejected the Reformed doctrine of sola fide, our Catholic brothers and sisters who believe in the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, i.e. the Gospel, are not “a true church”.
But of course we now know that Wright’s comment is nothing at all like a “straw man argument”. It is verified right here in Sproul’s own words as the “heavyweight” speaks out of both sides of his mouth.
Tagged Justification, N.T. Wright, R.C. Sproul
Wright’s Explanation of 2 Corinthians 5:21
I purchased a copy of What Saint Paul Really Said? so that N.T. Wright could autograph it since it was the first book on Paul by him I read.
If memory serves it was Edith Humphrey who brought up and challenged Wright’s interpretation of 2 Corinthians 5:21.
For N.T. Wright, if you are discussing Justification using the law-court metaphor (which has been the case since Calvin or before) it makes no sense at all to say that God’s righteousness is “imputed” on the believer. God as judge simply judges justly thus making him a “righteous Judge”. But when putting the subject of the believers Justification aside and asking the question on its own – giving full weight to the Old Testament use of “righteousness” – N.T. Wright believes that the phrase, “Gods Righteousness” is actually short hand for “the covenant faithfulness of God”. In both cases God’s righteousness is his own, it is not something he gives to anyone else.
If his interpretation is correct then what about 2 Corinthians 5:21 in which the text explicitly reads that “we have become the righteousness of God”?
N.T. Wright believes (as he says very clearly in both What Saint Paul Really Said? and in Justification) that this passage is so contextualized that we must read it as Paul talking about his own Apostolic Ministry and not about believers everywhere being imputed God’s righteousness.
Keep in mind that God’s righteousness is a reference to his faithfulness to his covenant, a faithfulness which came to fruition in the “faithful obedience of Jesus Christ on the cross” (Galatians 2:16, Philippians 2:5-11). So if the message of the Gospel – the birth, life, death, resurrection and ascension of Jesus Christ (1 Corinthians 15:1-5) is the message of God’s covenant faithfulness then, says Wright, when Paul and the Apostles preached that message they actually embodied that message. In that sense they literally became “the righteousness of God”. This, says Wright, is the whole context of 5:11-20 and even going back to chapter 3 and 4.
But I was not satisfied with this interpretation because it seemed to limit the scope of the biblical text. I tried to dance – ever so delicately – the line between the “old” view and the “new” (i.e. Wright’s) view believing that this passage does teach that believers “take on” God’s righteousness as it were, but through the Union With Christ (“In Him” it says) rather than “imputation”. In short, I leaned toward Edith’s understanding of this passage.
In Wright’s response to Edith Humphrey my anxieties were relieved. Wright, in explaining this text at the conference, seemed to go further with it then I think he does in his books. Keeping all of his premises in tact he expanded his interpretation of this passage to include all believers and their mission.
The righteousness of God does in fact refer to God’s faithfulness to his covenant expressed fully in the life, death and resurrection of Christ (i.e. the Gospel). Furthermore, Paul in 2 Corinthians is talking – in context – specifically about his own ministry and that of the other Apostles. But – and this I think is the touch Wright adds which he does not make clear in his previous writings – we believers have a job to do in proclaiming the Kingdom Message of the Gospel to the world and when we do that then we too become, i.e. embody, the Righteousness of God.
And that is how N.T. Wright interprets 2 Corinthians 5:21, it is an interpretation I can live with though I myself need to tease it out a bit more.
Thinking about God’s Righteousness
At the conference one scholar challenged N.T. Wright’s interpretation of 2 Corinthians 5:21 which reads, “He became sin who knew no sin that in Him we might become the righteousness of God”.
N.T. Wright maintains a distinction between “God’s righteousness” and “our justification” and we should not confuse the two.
The phrase “God’s righteousness” is God’s own righteousness as the Judge. The Judge is a “just” Judge not because he is morally perfect (though obviously God is), but because He judges Rightly, i.e. He is a righteous Judge. So God’s righteousness is his own ability to judge rightly, and in that sense it would be silly to suggest that the Judge (i.e. God) could impute, impart, bequeath et cetera his own “righteousness” onto the defendant.
The phrase “to be justified” is a declaration from the Righteous Judge (assuming He judges rightly). It is not a declaration that someone is morally perfect (“no one is righteous, no not one”), rather the Judge finds the defendant, based on the case and evidence at hand, to be justified. The evidence in a believer’s case that God looks for is whether or not he/she is a follower of Jesus the Messiah.
So God’s righteousness is His own as Judge and refers to His judging rightly. The defendants “justification” is a declaration made by the just Judge that he is acquitted of the crime of which he is accused of in that particular case. So the Judges “righteousness” is distinguished from the defendants “justification”.
So what about 2 Corinthians 5:21 which Paul distinctly writes that in Christ we become the “righteousness of God”. How can the defendant become the Judges own righteousness?
Cannot and does not this text support the traditional view that the believe becomes (i.e. is imputed) God’s own righteousness? I struggled with Wrights interpretation of this text (see my struggle here and read under the heading, “What About God’s Righteous Judgment”) and my struggle came into focus after Wright was challenged on this point and before he responded. I remember talking with a friend after the challenge was made and we bantered around ideas and wondered how Wright will respond.
It is his answer to that challenge which will be the focus of the next post.
CAN YOU GUESS WHERE DEREK IS SITTING IN RELATION TO WHERE N.T WRIGHT IS SITTING?
Tagged Justification, N.T. Wright, Righteousness of God
Why Does the Justification Debate Matter?
The debate over Justification is far reaching, stretching its tentacles into all things soteriology and ecclesiology including such doctrines such as Union with Christ, Imputation and so on.
I apologize for this untimely post. The Wheaton Conference crept up on me by near surprise, I did not anticipate how swift the past days would be. But rest assured I had this post, Why does the Justification Debate Matter?, in my mind through the whole conference. It’s a good thing too because as I have been anticipating or rather trying to think Wright’s thoughts after him, to the answer why this debate matters I had the honor of hearing Wright answer the question himself.
Answering Questions on the Discussion Panel
“If you read the text as though that were there you will miss what is really there.”
What is Wright saying? If you read the biblical text as though that thing you always believed it said were actually there, you will miss what the biblical text really does say. I gather from this two principle matters as to why this debate matters:
1. Personal integrity
2. Biblical integrity
Galatians 2:16, to use a key example, does not read “Justified by faith in Jesus Christ” (despite poor translation choices) but rather, “Justified by the faithfulness of Christ” a translations difference of significant proportions. Luther’s reading of the biblical text in this case was highly and emotively conditioned by his times. He made a mistake. Personal integrity says that we should accept the roots of our misreading (“our” because we read through the lens of our traditions, and in the Protestant tradition, Luther’s reading of Galatians 2:16 is fundamental).
Biblical integrity says that if this is what the text reads, well then be gone with our mistaken categories. N.T. Wright’s quote above challenges us who claim to be biblical to actually be biblical. As long as we read the text wrongly, we will forever miss what its author (not to mention its Divine Author) is actually saying.
To me that really makes this debate matter.
Tagged Justification, N.T. Wright
What is at Stake (Justification Debate)
Someone might think there is not much at stake in this debate. There is. (I state that matter-of-factly.)
After reading the last post it should be obvious that the doctrine of Imputation hangs in the balance. If Wright is correct then the doctrine of Imputation is unnecessary, superfluous and even simply wrong.
J.I Packer, Michael Bird, Larry Helyer and other Reformed scholars have all said explicitly that there is no verse in the bible that teaches Imputation (neither that we have been imputed Christ’s righteousness, nor that every individual has been imputed Adam’s particular sin). It is for this reason that John Wesley rejected this doctrine for most of his career (only to accept it on the condition that “imputation” never be separated from “impartation”) and why N.T. Wright and others reject it.
But the fact that the bible does not explicitly teach imputation does not stop Packer, Bird or Helyer from embracing that doctrine. Listen to Bird’s statement here:
“I don’t think that any single text in the New Testament speaks of the imputation of the righteousness of Christ to believers, but spread throughout the New Testament we find the ingredients for it when taken collectively.”
So there you have it, the “ingredients” are there. Does anyone even know what that means, the “ingredients”? A little bit of this and a little bit of that and voila: a doctrine. (Too many doctrines are made that way.) I have no problem with the idea that believers have been imputed Christ’s righteousness except that the bible does not seem to teach it and that there are other ways to accomplish what imputation seeks to do. (I do have a serious problem with the imputation of Adam’s sin on every individual. It is this reverse side of the doctrine of imputation that leads people like Jonathan Edwards to smugly declare children to be “infinitely more hateful then vipers”.)
But imputation is not the real issue for classical reformers, it is only a symptom. We could talk about their understanding of “works” or “faith” or “grace” or “justification” and so on. All of these are at stake one way or another (for the Reformers) but they are not the bottom line. The root of the problem, the real issue at stake is the Reformed Tradition. The entire Reformation was built on the foundation of Luther’s Justification by Faith Alone. Centuries of Creeds, respected scholars, heroes of the faith and even the greatest of all Reform giants, John Calvin himself, systemized, expounded, exegete, taught, preached and swore allegiance to this Great Tradition which proudly claims support from the scriptures. It would be a devastating blow to the Reformed ego if it could be shown from the Biblical text in historical context that all of this was built on a mistake.
For Piper, Sproul and others, the stakes are very high.
For Wright the stakes are equally high. If the root of the issue for Reformers is Tradition then the root of the issue for Wright is the scriptures. He says that “what is missing” in Reformed traditional scholarship is “an insistence on Scripture itself rather than tradition…” What he finds frustrating then is when he does this, when Wright insists on the scriptures, he is accused by Piper of doing away with 1500 years of tradition (does anyone else see the irony in that?). N.T. Wright believes that the traditional Reformers are more defensive of their traditions and creeds then in what the scriptures might actually reveal. To suggest that the Reformers did not get it all right the first time terrifies some of these guys.
For Wright, the stakes are nothing short of cosmic proportions. When asked what would be missing if Piper’s views were adopted, he answered:
“What’s missing is the big, Pauline picture of God’s gospel going out to redeem the whole world, all of creation, with ourselves as part of that. What’s missing is the big, Pauline view of the church, Jew and Gentile on equal footing, as the sign to the powers of the world that Jesus is Lord and they aren’t. What’s missing is the key work of the Holy Spirit in enabling the already-justified believers to live with moral energy and will so that they really do ‘please God’ as Paul says again and again (but as Reformed theology is shy of lest it smack of smuggling in works-righteousness again). What’s missing is an insistence on Scripture itself rather than tradition…”
It is my hope that you begin to get a sense of what is at stake. In the long run the stakes involve many issues including how to properly understand the relationship between faith and works, the atonement and half a dozen other issues. In the short run it is nothing short of which is supreme, Scripture or Tradition (keeping in mind that this debate is internal and has nothing to do with the Catholic Church).
Traditional Reformers can no longer get away with smugly waving off all of their opponents by claiming the biblical high ground as long as they continue to canonize the traditions of Luther and Calvin with unquestionable allegiance.
I think by now you probably have something of an idea as to why this debate matters, but as I “Post-Conservative” myself I feel pressed to write the next post anyways.
We have now seen each view summarized (post one) and we also now have a sense of what is at stake (hopefully). My views have been made crystal. I do not agree with Wright on all matters, but on this subject when he explains the scriptures I am inclined to agree. Frankly, accepting the biblical testimony in context over my own tradition has been very enlightening, invigorating, liberating, and joyful.
So next I will briefly suggest why this matters (as if this post didn’t already do that).
***Stay Tuned***
Tagged Impartation, Imputation, John Piper, Justification, N.T. Wright
What Piper/Wright Is Saying?
Introduction: In this post I will be attempting to summarize the positions of the Traditional Reformed scholars understanding of the doctrine of Justification by Faith (typified by John Piper) and (in contrast) N.T. Wrights development of this doctrine.
What Piper is Saying:
The Traditional Reformed doctrine simply teaches that humans, born depraved and guilty of Adam’s sin (imputed guilt), are unrighteous in the eyes of God. No amount of self-righteousness (works of the law, trying to be good enough) can make someone “right” in the eyes of God (“All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God”. “There is none righteous, no not one”).
But by the gift of faith (a gift given by God to his Elect) we are declared “justified” in the eyes of God. But how can God declare a guilty person to be “justified”? Wouldn’t that make God a bad Judge? Yes. So what is the answer? In enters Christ. Christ died on the cross for our sins (“he who knew no sin became sin for us”) and so our sins must have been imputed on to Christ (substitutionary Atonement). Since Christ was righteous (“knew no sin”) then while he took our sins upon himself, we in turn take his righteousness of us (“so that in Him we might become the righteousness of God”).
So Justification is at the heart of the doctrine of Salvation and at the heart of Justification is the doctrine of Imputation. It can be diagrammed like this:
Our sins are Imputed or Transferred to Christ while His Righteousness is Imputed or Transferred to us. We are declared righteous through the process of Imputation.
There are two things to keep in mind before we look at what Wright has to say on this subject:
First it is important to note that Luther developed this doctrine as a response to the works based religion of 16th century Catholicism. Key text are Galatians 2:16 (“a man is not justified by observing the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ”) and Romans 3:22 (“This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe”).
Second thing to notice is that Imputation is crucial to this whole Traditional Reform understanding of Justification by faith, as John Calvin says, “[Justification] consists in the remission of sins and the imputation of Christ’s righteousness” (Institutes III.xi.3). (This brings up a third point, the confusion between the terms “Christ’s righteousness” and “God’s righteousness” thinking of 2 Corinthians 5:21. But that is going deeper then I intend.)
So now you can understand why the Reformers find this statement of Wright’s so offensive:
“God’s righteousness belongs to Him. It isn’t something that, in the Law Court motif, could be imputed, imparted, bequeathed, bestowed, or otherwise tossed around the courtroom” (What Saint Paul Really Said? – more on this in the next post.)
What is Wright Saying:
Contrary to the traditional view outlined above, we are neither Justified by OUR faith (in the context of Galatians 2:16 and Romans 3:22) nor are we IMPUTED Christ’s (or God’s) own righteousness. We are justified, but this is not a reference to a MORAL standing before God, justification is simply a status we incur when we enter Christ (the doctrine of “In Him”). But If we are not justified by OUR faith then how are we justified? The answer, again, is Christ. We are justified by Christ’s obedience to God the Father on the cross. We are not justified by our obedience or works, but we are justified by Christ’s obedience and works! (Philippians 2:8)
What this means is that 16th century events formed a doctrine out of the scriptures which is not there. Luther and Calvin’s doctrine of Justification (however helpful it may have been at the time) is simply not what Paul was saying. Paul is not saying (in Galatians 2:16 or Romans 3:22) that we are Justified by our faith and not our works, what he is saying is that we are not justified by our works but by Christ’s works.
Key text are the same for Wright as they are for the Traditional Reformed scholars, Galatians 2:16 (“a man is not justified by observing the law, but by the faithfulness of Jesus Christ”) and Romans 3:22 (“this righteousness from God comes through the faithfulness of Jesus Christ to all who believe”) but you’ll notice that I underlined a translation difference between here and how this text is traditionally translated. We are not justified by our faith, but by His Faithfulness. It is not by our BELIEF but by His OBEDIENCE.
And that is all N.T. Wright is trying to say about the doctrine of Justification (particularly in the context of Galatians 2:16 and Romans 3:22). We are justified by what Christ did, not by what we do.
What About God’s Righteous Judgment?
But the question remains the same as for the Traditional Reform scholars: how can God be a righteous Judge if he declared people “justified” even though they are “guilty”? Wright believes that Traditional Reformed scholars at this point begin to confuse “Justification” with “Salvation”. If Salvation were a car, Reformed theology mistakenly assumes that “Justification” is also the car when in fact “Justification” is only the steering wheel. In other words, they have confused a “piece” of the car for the car itself. Justification is only one part of the salvation process it is not the whole thing. (See, for example, the video I posted here.)
So to the question, “how can God be righteous in declaring sinners “justified” even though they are “guilty”’, instead of reaching inside of the doctrine of Justification and creating something called “Imputation” (as Luther, Calvin and Piper do), Wright would rather reach for a category which Paul himself uses, the doctrine of “In Christ”. (2 Corinthians 5:21, “God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that IN HIM we might become the righteousness of God”. I should note here that I’ve added to where Wright would not. Tom Wright does not see this verse as applying to you and me, but rather specifically to the Apostle. I think he is right, but I do not see sufficient cause to limit this passage only to the Apostle.)
Other ways in which God can be righteous in declaring the “guilty” as being “justified” are through the doctrine of sanctification (we are being made more holy every day until we die), the doctrine of the Holy Spirit who is conforming us into the image of Christ (since we are “IN HIM”) and not least the principle of Already but Not Yet. (Romans 2:13 “for it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God’s sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous”. Notice the future tense “will be” is not based on faith but one works (“who obey the law”). God declares us righteous in the present in anticipation of a future declaration based on our works in the here and now.)
Given the biblical doctrine of “In Christ”, “Sanctification”, the “Holy Spirit” and the principle of “Already but Not Yet” we simply have no need to create a doctrine of Imputation or Impartation the way the Reformers imagined it. As Wright says, there are other ways to get there. Imputation is not a biblical category and is superseded by the doctrine of “In Christ” and Impartation is not a biblical category and is superseded by the doctrine of “Sanctification”.
Not only are the doctrines of Imputation and Impartation not necessary, they are actually incorrect for understanding Justification and the key text in play (Galatians 2:16 and Romans 3:22).
If we want to understand what Paul is saying we need to kick these categories to the curb, get rid of the old misunderstanding of Galatians 2:16 and Romans 3:22 which has long been imbedded in the Reformed Tradition (ironically) and turn to the scriptures and what Saint Paul Really Said. The Reformers did many good things and many bad things. Let us be thankful for the good they did and correct their mistakes. And in this discussion they simply got it wrong.
In the next post we’ll look at the question: What Is At Stake?
***Stay Tuned***
Justification? Getting It Wright
My wife knows how much I love puns, and N.T. Wright’s name presents endless possibilities. So, in reference to the title of this post, excuse the pun.
Every time I come across someone who enjoys reading N.T. Wright I usually ask two questions. First I ask if they read his recent book on Justification and secondly, if so what are their thoughts. In response I usually get one of two answers. Either they are not sure if they agree with Wright or they are not sure if they know what he is even saying and why it matters.
We owe John Piper a great deal of thanks in my opinion. In challenging Wright’s ambiguity N.T. wrote his most clear and present articulation of justification to date. And that is why I am so baffled over this indecisiveness.
People, for whatever reason, don’t seem to have understood what Wright is saying and why it matters. Thus the purpose of this new short series.
Friday I leave with some friends to Chicago to attend the 19th Annual Wheaton Theological Conference: Jesus, Paul and the People of God: A Theological Dialogue with N.T. Wright. I have decided in the days leading up to my departure, that I would simplify and clarify N.T. Wright’s view of Justification as best I can.
I am taking a risk here because I will be interpreting Wright, but I am confident that I do have a firm grasp of the key issues, Wright’s views on the subject and why they matter.
I hope that those who I have spoken to about this will receive clarification and understanding. So I won’t be defending Wright or his view and I am going to keep things pretty simple (like really, really simple).
The series will follow as such:
1. What is Piper Saying/What is Wright saying. In this post I want to clearly and concisely state how the views of each is different. Throughout this series I’ll be using Piper as a “type” of the Traditional Reform understanding of Justification, and Wright as a “type” of the emerging scholarship.
2. What Is At Stake. In this post I want to look at the key issues which Wright has undermined in the Traditional Reform paradigm. This post is important because we will understand why Piper (a.k.a. the Traditional Reformed scholarship) all have their underwear in knots.
3. Why It Matters. In this concluding post I want to try and briefly explain what N.T. Wright is saying when he discusses Justification. If all three posts are important for understanding the debate, this post is the most important for those who read Justification by Wright but remain indecisive. My hope is that they will come away from this series saying, “Now I get it” and either agree or disagree or even partly agree.
I don’t really care what position people take as long as they take a position based on an educated opinion.
Stay closely tuned over the next few days…
Tagged John Piper, Justification, N.T. Wright
Why Did N.T. Wright Write Justification?
Leave Your Comments on this Hot Potato Below!
Tagged Justification, N.T. Wright
Justified By His Faithfulness – Romans 3:22
I read a post by another blogger recently titled “Made Righteous in Christ Jesus“. It is a well written post explaining and defending the traditional Reformed doctrine of the imputation of Christ’ righteousness.
But as the post takes flight the blogger focuses all of his energy on being made righteous by having faith in Jesus. In other words, there is subtle move from understanding being justified as a matter of “Incorporation/Participation” (being in Christ) to being imputed righteousness by having faith in Christ (believing in Christ).
I think this shift happens without thought and I think it is a mistake. I believe we are not made righteous by having faith in Jesus (that is how we are saved – Eph 2:8-9). But we are made righteous by Jesus’ own faithfulness!
Consider Romans 3:22:
This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. – NIV
Notice the NIV reads, “faith in Jesus Christ”. But the Greek reads, “faith of Jesus Christ” (look it up). And since the Greek word for faith can at the same time be translated “faithfulness”, I think the passage should be rendered, “faithfulness of Jesus Christ”.
Think about it for a moment. The passage makes no sense at all if it says “faith in” because Paul would be exercising his right to redundancy: “Through faith [believing] in Jesus Christ to all who believe” – obviously Paul, why add, “to all who believe” if you already said, “through faith [believing]“?
I think the passage makes better sense this way: “Righteousness of God comes through the faithfulness of Jesus Christ to all who believe”. Now doesn’t that make more sense?
When we believe we become participators in Christ, taking on his righteousness, a righteousness he claims by way of his faithfulness to God by being obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross (Philippians 2:6-11).
God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God – 2 Corinthians 5:21
The doctrine of imputation is always talked about a part from the doctrine of participation. I think this is a mistake.
The doctrine of imputation should never be talked about a part from the doctrine of participation.
(Note: the article I referenced above is otherwise a great post!)
Top 5 Reads of 2009
In no particular order, here are my top 5 reads of 2009: (more…)
