Comments on: The Future of Justification http://www.sfpulpit.com/2008/05/30/the-future-of-justification/ A Ministry of Shepherds' Fellowship Fri, 21 Nov 2008 04:30:11 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.0.4 by: Jim Harris http://www.sfpulpit.com/2008/05/30/the-future-of-justification/#comment-138964 Wed, 04 Jun 2008 22:45:48 +0000 http://www.sfpulpit.com/2008/05/30/the-future-of-justification/#comment-138964 Art and Matt. Thank you both for the dialog. I'm the one who introduced the h-word earlier. My own conclusion is that Wright does not believe the Biblical doctrine of salvation, and I think his wording cited above is problematic. If the RCC and Protestantism are contradictory systems, we cannot be brothers in Christ. I'm still there, but it has been helpful to see how the discussion unfolds. The other issue which seems conclusive for me regarding Wright is his view that we have misunderstood the RCC for centuries. The NPP people I know also think we have misunderstood 1st century Judaism and the doctrine of justification. Is that a fair summary of some of the NPP positions, Art? Art and Matt. Thank you both for the dialog. I’m the one who introduced the h-word earlier. My own conclusion is that Wright does not believe the Biblical doctrine of salvation, and I think his wording cited above is problematic. If the RCC and Protestantism are contradictory systems, we cannot be brothers in Christ. I’m still there, but it has been helpful to see how the discussion unfolds.

The other issue which seems conclusive for me regarding Wright is his view that we have misunderstood the RCC for centuries. The NPP people I know also think we have misunderstood 1st century Judaism and the doctrine of justification. Is that a fair summary of some of the NPP positions, Art?

]]> by: Matt Waymeyer http://www.sfpulpit.com/2008/05/30/the-future-of-justification/#comment-138884 Wed, 04 Jun 2008 18:00:09 +0000 http://www.sfpulpit.com/2008/05/30/the-future-of-justification/#comment-138884 Art: Everything contained in that quotation is also stated clearly in the chapter I read. But it fails to answer my question or alleviate my concerns. Perhaps a blog interaction is not the best forum for resolving these kinds of issues. I look forward to studying this further in the future. Blessings. Art: Everything contained in that quotation is also stated clearly in the chapter I read. But it fails to answer my question or alleviate my concerns. Perhaps a blog interaction is not the best forum for resolving these kinds of issues. I look forward to studying this further in the future. Blessings.

]]> by: art http://www.sfpulpit.com/2008/05/30/the-future-of-justification/#comment-138878 Wed, 04 Jun 2008 17:51:04 +0000 http://www.sfpulpit.com/2008/05/30/the-future-of-justification/#comment-138878 Matt: Forgive the lengthy quote, but this might help. It is from an article entitled "The Shape of Justification" by Wright: "<i>The 'faith' in question is faith in 'the God who raised Jesus from the dead'. It comes about through the announcement of God's word, the gospel, which works powerfully in the hearts of hearers, 'calling' them to believe, or indeed (as Paul often puts it) to 'obey' the gospel (Rom. 1.16f.; 1 Thess. 1.3f., 2.13; 2 Thess. 1.8). This faith looks backwards to what God has done in Christ, by means of his own obedient faithfulness to God's purpose (Rom. 5.19; Phil. 2.6), relying on that rather than on anything that is true of oneself. For Paul, this meant refusing to regard the badges of Jewish law-observance ('the works of the law') as the decisive factor (Phil. 3.2-11). And it looks forward to the final day: because this faith is the first sign of new God-given life, it is the appropriate anticipation of the final verdict, which is guaranteed by the same Spirit who inspired faith (2 Cor. 1.22; Phil. 1.6). By 'the gospel' Paul does not mean 'justification by faith' itself. He means the announcement that the crucified and risen Jesus is Lord. To believe this message, to give believing allegiance to Jesus as Messiah and Lord, is to be justified in the present by faith (whether or not one has even heard of justification by faith). Justification by faith itself is a second-order doctrine: to believe it is both to have assurance (believing that one will be vindicated on the last day [Rom. 5.1-5]) and to know that one belongs in the single family of God, called to share table-fellowship without distinction with all other believers (Gal. 2.11-21). But one is not justified by faith by believing in justification by faith (this, I think, is what Newman thought Protestants believed), but by believing in Jesus. 'Justification' is thus the declaration of God, the just judge, that someone is (a) in the right, that their sins are forgiven, and (b) a true member of the covenant family, the people belonging to Abraham. That is how the word works in Paul's writings. It doesn't describe how people get in to God's forgiven family; it declares that they are in. That may seem a small distinction, but in understanding what Paul is saying it is vital.</i>" Hopefully that clarifies it for you. Matt:

Forgive the lengthy quote, but this might help. It is from an article entitled “The Shape of Justification” by Wright:

“The ‘faith’ in question is faith in ‘the God who raised Jesus from the dead’. It comes about through the announcement of God’s word, the gospel, which works powerfully in the hearts of hearers, ‘calling’ them to believe, or indeed (as Paul often puts it) to ‘obey’ the gospel (Rom. 1.16f.; 1 Thess. 1.3f., 2.13; 2 Thess. 1.8). This faith looks backwards to what God has done in Christ, by means of his own obedient faithfulness to God’s purpose (Rom. 5.19; Phil. 2.6), relying on that rather than on anything that is true of oneself. For Paul, this meant refusing to regard the badges of Jewish law-observance (’the works of the law’) as the decisive factor (Phil. 3.2-11). And it looks forward to the final day: because this faith is the first sign of new God-given life, it is the appropriate anticipation of the final verdict, which is guaranteed by the same Spirit who inspired faith (2 Cor. 1.22; Phil. 1.6).

By ‘the gospel’ Paul does not mean ‘justification by faith’ itself. He means the announcement that the crucified and risen Jesus is Lord. To believe this message, to give believing allegiance to Jesus as Messiah and Lord, is to be justified in the present by faith (whether or not one has even heard of justification by faith). Justification by faith itself is a second-order doctrine: to believe it is both to have assurance (believing that one will be vindicated on the last day [Rom. 5.1-5]) and to know that one belongs in the single family of God, called to share table-fellowship without distinction with all other believers (Gal. 2.11-21). But one is not justified by faith by believing in justification by faith (this, I think, is what Newman thought Protestants believed), but by believing in Jesus.

‘Justification’ is thus the declaration of God, the just judge, that someone is (a) in the right, that their sins are forgiven, and (b) a true member of the covenant family, the people belonging to Abraham. That is how the word works in Paul’s writings. It doesn’t describe how people get in to God’s forgiven family; it declares that they are in. That may seem a small distinction, but in understanding what Paul is saying it is vital.”

Hopefully that clarifies it for you.

]]> by: Matt Waymeyer http://www.sfpulpit.com/2008/05/30/the-future-of-justification/#comment-138875 Wed, 04 Jun 2008 17:39:24 +0000 http://www.sfpulpit.com/2008/05/30/the-future-of-justification/#comment-138875 Art: If you reread the comment thread, you will find I haven’t called anyone a heretic. I am simply trying to understand what Wright believes about Roman Catholicism and why. If Wright believes that a true Roman Catholic cannot be a true Christian (as you said he does), and if he also believes that at least some Roman Catholics are true brothers in Christ (as he said he does), then I am merely seeking to understand how these two beliefs fit together. In my attempt to be as generous as possible in my interpretation of Wright, I wondered if perhaps he means that Roman Catholics who are saved are not actually “true” Roman Catholics, presumably because they have renounced (at least in their hearts) the RCC’s system of salvation by faith plus works. That was the point of my question above. If this is indeed the case, I wish he wouldn’t confuse the issue by referring to these people as Roman Catholics, but perhaps he has his reasons for doing so. After rereading the relevant portion of his chapter “New Perspectives on Paul”—particularly the lengthy paragraph that begins on page 261 and ends on page 262—I find myself having a difficult time agreeing with your assessment of Wright’s views on Roman Catholicism. He seems to present Protestants and Catholics as having a “shared faith in Jesus” which gives them “a powerful incentive to work together across denominational barriers.” Rather than dividing Catholics and Protestants over the past 400 years, Wright says that the doctrine of justification should have united the two groups across their cultural divides. This leads to Wright’s concluding statement: “Not that there are not large and important problems in ecumenical relations. I am horrified at some of the recent Anglican-Roman statements, for instance, and on topics such as the papacy, purgatory, and the cult of saints (especially Mary). I am as Protestant as the next person for (I take it) good Pauline reasons. But justification by faith tells me that if my Roman neighbor believes that Jesus is Lord and that God raised him from the dead, then he or she is a brother or sister, however much I believe my neighbor muddled, even dangerously so, on other matters.” As I mentioned above, I am new to N.T. Wright, and I have only read this one chapter. For this reason, I am certainly open to the possibility that I am misunderstanding what he is saying. Indeed, I hope that I am. Art: If you reread the comment thread, you will find I haven’t called anyone a heretic. I am simply trying to understand what Wright believes about Roman Catholicism and why. If Wright believes that a true Roman Catholic cannot be a true Christian (as you said he does), and if he also believes that at least some Roman Catholics are true brothers in Christ (as he said he does), then I am merely seeking to understand how these two beliefs fit together. In my attempt to be as generous as possible in my interpretation of Wright, I wondered if perhaps he means that Roman Catholics who are saved are not actually “true” Roman Catholics, presumably because they have renounced (at least in their hearts) the RCC’s system of salvation by faith plus works. That was the point of my question above. If this is indeed the case, I wish he wouldn’t confuse the issue by referring to these people as Roman Catholics, but perhaps he has his reasons for doing so.

After rereading the relevant portion of his chapter “New Perspectives on Paul”—particularly the lengthy paragraph that begins on page 261 and ends on page 262—I find myself having a difficult time agreeing with your assessment of Wright’s views on Roman Catholicism. He seems to present Protestants and Catholics as having a “shared faith in Jesus” which gives them “a powerful incentive to work together across denominational barriers.” Rather than dividing Catholics and Protestants over the past 400 years, Wright says that the doctrine of justification should have united the two groups across their cultural divides. This leads to Wright’s concluding statement:

“Not that there are not large and important problems in ecumenical relations. I am horrified at some of the recent Anglican-Roman statements, for instance, and on topics such as the papacy, purgatory, and the cult of saints (especially Mary). I am as Protestant as the next person for (I take it) good Pauline reasons. But justification by faith tells me that if my Roman neighbor believes that Jesus is Lord and that God raised him from the dead, then he or she is a brother or sister, however much I believe my neighbor muddled, even dangerously so, on other matters.”

As I mentioned above, I am new to N.T. Wright, and I have only read this one chapter. For this reason, I am certainly open to the possibility that I am misunderstanding what he is saying. Indeed, I hope that I am.

]]> by: art http://www.sfpulpit.com/2008/05/30/the-future-of-justification/#comment-138866 Wed, 04 Jun 2008 16:55:09 +0000 http://www.sfpulpit.com/2008/05/30/the-future-of-justification/#comment-138866 I'm not sure exactly who Wright has in mind or whether or not that particular person has renounced salvation by works as taught in the RCC. You're playing with terms in your questions though. First you asked me about a true Roman Catholic then you asked me about a hypothetical person who renounces the RCC's teaching. What is clear, however, is that Wright is not condoning a RCC understanding of justification. This can be seen by even a cursory reading of his articles on faith, justification, or even his shorter works and commentaries. Again, to say he is "heretical" is go well beyond what the top evangelical <b>scholars</b> are saying, whereas many pastors and Christian colleges are saying otherwise. I fully believe the latter are acting more out of a reactionary tendency than out of scholarship. I’m not sure exactly who Wright has in mind or whether or not that particular person has renounced salvation by works as taught in the RCC.

You’re playing with terms in your questions though. First you asked me about a true Roman Catholic then you asked me about a hypothetical person who renounces the RCC’s teaching.

What is clear, however, is that Wright is not condoning a RCC understanding of justification. This can be seen by even a cursory reading of his articles on faith, justification, or even his shorter works and commentaries.

Again, to say he is “heretical” is go well beyond what the top evangelical scholars are saying, whereas many pastors and Christian colleges are saying otherwise. I fully believe the latter are acting more out of a reactionary tendency than out of scholarship.

]]> by: Matt Waymeyer http://www.sfpulpit.com/2008/05/30/the-future-of-justification/#comment-138641 Wed, 04 Jun 2008 04:46:49 +0000 http://www.sfpulpit.com/2008/05/30/the-future-of-justification/#comment-138641 So when Wright refers to the Roman Catholic who "believes that Jesus is Lord and that God raised him from the dead" as being a brother in Christ, he means that this hypothetical Roman Catholic has renounced (at least in his heart) the RCC's system of salvation by faith plus works? So when Wright refers to the Roman Catholic who “believes that Jesus is Lord and that God raised him from the dead” as being a brother in Christ, he means that this hypothetical Roman Catholic has renounced (at least in his heart) the RCC’s system of salvation by faith plus works?

]]> by: art http://www.sfpulpit.com/2008/05/30/the-future-of-justification/#comment-138640 Wed, 04 Jun 2008 04:37:03 +0000 http://www.sfpulpit.com/2008/05/30/the-future-of-justification/#comment-138640 By claiming justification by faith plus works. Wright affirms the 39 Articles as an Anglican Bishop. That makes it clear. By claiming justification by faith plus works. Wright affirms the 39 Articles as an Anglican Bishop. That makes it clear.

]]> by: Matt Waymeyer http://www.sfpulpit.com/2008/05/30/the-future-of-justification/#comment-138610 Wed, 04 Jun 2008 02:53:06 +0000 http://www.sfpulpit.com/2008/05/30/the-future-of-justification/#comment-138610 On what basis, then, would Wright deny that a true Roman Catholic (that is, one who is pursuing salvation according to the means taught by the RCC) is not a true Christian? On what basis, then, would Wright deny that a true Roman Catholic (that is, one who is pursuing salvation according to the means taught by the RCC) is not a true Christian?

]]> by: art http://www.sfpulpit.com/2008/05/30/the-future-of-justification/#comment-138600 Wed, 04 Jun 2008 02:38:24 +0000 http://www.sfpulpit.com/2008/05/30/the-future-of-justification/#comment-138600 Wright means there what he says explicitly elsewhere in different contexts. Namely: one is justified by faith, not justified by faith in justification by faith. Saying anything more is to say more than Christ himself has said. Wright means there what he says explicitly elsewhere in different contexts. Namely: one is justified by faith, not justified by faith in justification by faith. Saying anything more is to say more than Christ himself has said.

]]> by: Matt Waymeyer http://www.sfpulpit.com/2008/05/30/the-future-of-justification/#comment-138581 Wed, 04 Jun 2008 01:17:55 +0000 http://www.sfpulpit.com/2008/05/30/the-future-of-justification/#comment-138581 Art: Thank you for the straightforwardness of your response. I am new to N.T. Wright and just read a chapter he wrote entitled "New Perspectives on Paul" (in a book edited by Bruce McCormack). Toward the end of his discussion of justification, where he refers to it as "the original ecumenical doctrine," Wright addresses the relationship between Catholics and Protestants. Although he is "horrified" at some of the teaching of the RCC, Wright states that his understanding of justification by faith tells him "that if my Roman neighbor believes that Jesus is Lord and that God raised him from the dead, then he or she is a brother or sister, however much I believe my neighbor muddled, even dangerously so, on other matters" (pp. 261-62). Can you help me understand what he means by that? Earlier in the chapter he affirms that becoming a Christian "is not based on anything that a person has acquired by birth or achieved by merit" (p. 257)--which is good and true--but what does mean in this other statement? Every Roman Catholic I've ever met would say he believes that Jesus is Lord and that God raised Him from the dead, so what exactly is Wright saying here? Art: Thank you for the straightforwardness of your response. I am new to N.T. Wright and just read a chapter he wrote entitled “New Perspectives on Paul” (in a book edited by Bruce McCormack). Toward the end of his discussion of justification, where he refers to it as “the original ecumenical doctrine,” Wright addresses the relationship between Catholics and Protestants. Although he is “horrified” at some of the teaching of the RCC, Wright states that his understanding of justification by faith tells him “that if my Roman neighbor believes that Jesus is Lord and that God raised him from the dead, then he or she is a brother or sister, however much I believe my neighbor muddled, even dangerously so, on other matters” (pp. 261-62). Can you help me understand what he means by that?

Earlier in the chapter he affirms that becoming a Christian “is not based on anything that a person has acquired by birth or achieved by merit” (p. 257)–which is good and true–but what does mean in this other statement? Every Roman Catholic I’ve ever met would say he believes that Jesus is Lord and that God raised Him from the dead, so what exactly is Wright saying here?

]]>