You are currently browsing the tag archive for the 'N.T. Wright' tag.
Although most theologians would be at pains to say that God’s plan of redemption in Jesus was conceived before the world was made, many people see it as a kind of plan B necessary to save a world which failed at plan A namely obedience to God’s Law. Is the New Covenant really a breaking of God’s original plan whereby one was saved by obedience and can now be saved by “easy” beliefs? Paul’s vision in Romans is grander, both are by grace and both require obedience. Read the rest of this entry »
There is an unstated but deep-rooted assumption in most Christian theology that righteousness is exclusively a moral category. That is, a person is perfectly righteous if they are morally perfect and any degrees of righteousness in a person are in a linear and inextricable relationship to the morality of that individual. This righteousness then becomes the basis of God’s judgement of that person and within this framework it is clear that any acquittal (aka justification) requires adequate moral performance.
Interestingly Catholics and Protestants have historically agreed with this assessment – they have however disagreed on the source and scope of that righteousness in justification. Catholics have said God transfers or implants his own righteousness into believers (Infusion) whilst Protestants have held that God reckons Christ’s perfect obedience unto believers (Imputation). In either case moral righteousness or obedience is the key to justification even if it is received by faith as Catholics and Protestants (now) agree it is. The problem is this: if justification is by grace it must be unmerited and both these models clearly require and account for obedient merit. Read the rest of this entry »
I go to a church in which the Bible is referred to as “the Word of God” and it’s inerrancy is upheld as the basis (or foundation) of our belief. Here, Christians are basically people who decided to trust the Bible and arguments on Doctrine or Practice can be solved by consulting and quoting of Scripture.
Many of my brothers and sisters know the Bible very well and can quote chapter and verse (of which I am envious) but I have several issues with this “high” view of Scripture which have brought me into some conflict in the past with some of the pillars that be. Read the rest of this entry »
The following question has been crystallising in my mind of late: is righteousness a status God bestows or a property he acknowledges? This, it seems to me, is the issue which divides protestant / catholic belief. Protestants, particularly Reformed Evangelicals hold: not our righteousness is counted but Christ’s (see John Piper, Counted Righteous in Christ) because God justifies the ungodly as we read in Romans 4:
However, to the man who does not work but trusts God who justifies the wicked, his faith is credited as righteousness.
Rom 4:5
I would seem that if God calls a sinner a saint, then that is so. The reformed answer to the Euthyphro Dilemma is: Good is what God says is Good. We Christians may be bad people, but we’re good in God’s sight because of faith and that’s what counts. Thus, the flip side of our sins not being counted (forgiveness) is that Jesus life get’s booked to our account.
This conclusion is confirmed each time I read or hear an evangelical teaching. I listened to a preaching today by a good pastor from the south of England regarding Romans 4. His key exegetical points were that Paul is showing:
- You can’t earn entrance into heaven
- If you think you’re good, you’re not
- It is by grace through faith all the way (Eph 2:8)
He illustrated the second point from Luke 18:9-14 where a tax collector beats his breast in repentance after a Pharisee boasts his righteous deeds before God. Jesus says that the tax collector “went home justified before God. For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted”.
This really sums up evangelical thinking: Only God is truly Good and only when he justifies a person are they righteous. God declares someone righteous not because they are in fact righteous but because they have faith. Righteousness is a status bestowed and not a property discovered.
Now, it’s obvious that we all sin and need forgiveness. But is this the model for the Final Judgement? Will we stand before Christ, who will judge our deeds (Mt 24, 2 Cor 10), and, when things look bad, we fall on our knees and plea for mercy? Why can’t non-Christians do this? Or will Christians simply not be present at this horrible Judgement Day?
Many evangelicals have concluded that there is no real judgement for believers (Rom 8:1). There is an Awards Ceremony for Christians and a Terrible Judgement for the rest. Our sins are paid for and ignored because we believed and we’re only here to get awarded for good service by God. Evangelicals say Christians escape judgement and receive forgiven because of faith.
The closest thing I can find in Jesus teaching about this doesn’t quite match. In Matthew 7 Jesus says “Do not judge, or you too will be judged” and in Matthew 6:14 “if you forgive men when they sin against you, your heavenly Father will also forgive you”. Disciples are taught that they escape judgement and receive forgiven because they have forgiven and not judged.
| Forgiven | Not Judged | |
| Reformed Tradition | By Grace Through Faith on the Basis of the Cross | |
| Jesus | By Forgiving Others | By Not Judging Others |
In case it was unclear Jesus re-iterated (Mt 6:15): if you do not forgive men their sins, your Father will not forgive your sins. What does that mean for any evangelicals who don’t forgive but “trust in the Blood”!?
My point is not simply the glaring gap between human tradition and Jesus teaching. Rather it’s that the evangelical teaching is a seemingly arbitrary formal deal (faith for forgiveness) whereas Jesus teaching is a logical real deal (reciprocal forgiveness). Evangelicals think God justifies and forgives on the basis of faith but Jesus teaches forgiveness on the basis of certain “works”. Secular people cannot follow our “justification by faith” doctrine but they really get “do unto others” and expect God to award good behaviour and “forgive us as we forgive others”. Are they seriously misled? I would say they’ve understood the Lord’s teaching better than us.
OK, we can debate about whether forgiveness is a “work” or not but I know that in many evangelical circles forgiveness, a virtue, will be classified as “good works”, as one of those good things we try to do to earn God’s approval. Is that really so bad? My English preacher used Galatians 5 to show that our good works are just like circumcision – they annul Christ’s work.
But Listen to Jesus:
“You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven. For he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust.”
Matthew 5:43-45
The main point of this verse is that God is benevolent towards all humans, good or bad, and so should we be. But the tacit assumptions are revealing and not generally shared by evangelicals:
- Sonship is earned by loving people
- There are just and unjust people
Again, we can debate whether or not “earned” is the right word but I expect love and prayer to be exactly the types of “good works” evangelicals keep telling us won’t get us to heaven. Prayer is typically associated with a religious duty and we know the bad Pharisees made long prayers (Mt 6). Yet here we have Jesus saying: “Do this, so that you will be sons of God”.
Of course sonship is not technically the same as forgiven and justified. Theoretically you could be adopted as a son by God with or without forgiveness and justification. However, biblically, these things go together (John 1:12, 2 Cor 6:18, Mt 6:8) – the justified are God’s family. Evangelicals treat sonship and justification as applying to the same group of people and I concur. But this makes passages such as Mt 5:43-45 above difficult for evangelicals who believe that faith and grace are all that is required. Indeed many of Jesus sayings, particularly Mt 25:31-46 is practically unintelligible for the Sola Fide group.
Think of the Prodigal Son (Luke 15). He came home in repentance, pleaing for mercy. His father basically “justified” him by calling him “son” although the man acknowledged he did not deserve it. The father gave the status of sonship at the same time as forgiveness because he repented and pled for salvation (not because of his “faith”). This is Initial Justification, God’s “Welcome Home” to the repentant sinner. This is the topic of Romans 3:21 onwards.
Imagine now the scene many years later when the father stands up to speak of his son. He speaks about the things his son really did, how he helped develop the business, assisted his family, saved that sheep and praised his faithfulness. Perhaps the father will gloss over the failings but he surely won’t praise the son for deeds he never did, imputing righteousness as evangelicals understand it.
I conclude, with N.T. Wright (see Justification) that our present status before God as a result of Initial Justification by Faith is an anticipation of the final judgement where there will be a Justification by Works and that Paul has made this perfectly clear in, the oft neglected, or twisted Romans 2.
But because of your stubbornness and your unrepentant heart, you are storing up wrath against yourself for the day of God’s wrath, when his righteous judgment will be revealed. God “will give to each person according to what he has done.” To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life. But for those who are self-seeking and who reject the truth and follow evil, there will be wrath and anger. There will be trouble and distress for every human being who does evil: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile; 10but glory, honor and peace for everyone who does good: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile. For God does not show favoritism.
All who sin apart from the law will also perish apart from the law, and all who sin under the law will be judged by the law. 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.
Romans 2:5-13
Justification by Faith is perhaps the central tenet of evangelical belief. I’ve previously tried to understand and formulate what Justification is, how it is apart from works and what kind of faith is meant. In this article I want to explore what exactly the phrase “by Faith” means and let the spectrum of meaning come to light which we should be keeping in mind as we read and sometimes gloss over this familiar catchphrase. In particular the questions in my mind are: 1) what does “by” mean and 2) whose faith? Read the rest of this entry »
Wright’s Understanding of Justification of Faith
Most people understand the Pauline doctrine of “justification by faith” to mean one is justified because of faith in Jesus. Though this is probable, N.T. Wright has argued in his Commentary on Romans (New Interpreters Bible, Vol. X) that “by” does not mean “because of” but “as evidenced by”. One has been justified and this is evident by one’s faith. As Wright is a Calvinist, faith is not something one produces but a gift of God (Eph 2:8) and this surely influence his interpretation.
Wright argues that faith is the true badge of justification (inclusion in God’s family) over and against the badge of circumcision (works of Torah). This is radically different from the common interpretation as the following example demonstrates: Read the rest of this entry »
I’ve discovered N.T. Wright recently and have been enthralled by the man’s knowledge, lucidity and dignified manner in the few talks I have been listening to. I wonder if he’s not the modern day C.S. Lewis which would be a coup because Lewis’ work changed and progressed my life more than any other author and this is what Christianity is all about (or at least it’s mechanism): being transformed by the renewing of our mind as we get to know God and his works more deeply.
Wright is the Anglican Bishop of Durham and I was almost disappointed that he does not have the Yorkshire accent I adore but rather the Oxford english I might have expected and possibly also shared by Lewis. The bishop is, like Lewis, a prolific writer: (a caller, apparently, upon being told that the Bishop was busy writing a book replied “It’s OK, I’ll hold”) - I’m going to have to excercise some self-control at Amazon over the next few days.
What most attracted me was that which drew me to Lewis – a fresh, contemporary and profound yet honest rendering of the Christian narrative which leaves you feeling empowered and hungry for more of the depths which are to be searched in discovering God and His purposes.
I read somewhere that Wright is one who puts things in categories no one is comfortable with. This seems to be his trademark and I for one can appreciate it because it shows that the inter-doctrinal battles are in the truest sense Beside the Point. This comforts me greatly as I’ve been exposed to some Hyper-Calvinists lately and it rocked my boat. I imagine that Wright, if pressed say on any matter of controversy, would begin something like “When one understands this within the framework of…” and you can picture the questioner’s brow furrowing as he is forced to look at the issue from a new and deeper perspective and will not be getting a juicy quote to stir up trouble. I do wonder if the ambiguity we discover in the Bible is just that: us not getting the deeper meaning much like our inability to comprehend wave-particle duality because it doesn’t fit into our simplistic understanding of matter as “hard stuff” (actually it’s 99.9999% nothing).
Listening today to Wright’s talk on Romans for the second time I was glad I was not physically present but cauld pause and rewind my MP3 player to get what he was saying again. If I wasn’t driving at the time I would have been reaching for pen and paper the information content is that dense and brilliant.
