N. T. Wright discusses his book, "Justification"

[Strefanasha]

I have a book on justification that i can read any ime i care to.

It is called the Bible.

What is it with us christians who are so biblicly illiterate and lazy that we chase religious writers rather than go to the source of doctrine itself, namely the Bible and the Spirit of Christ the Bible points to

[jmmanley]

In other words, objections to the NPP on the grounds of justification by faith alone seem to presuppose the Reformed definitions of "works of the law" and "faith in Christ Jesus" and "justification." Why must we assume that "works of the law" only has a strongly moral meaning, devoid of the cultural, ethnic, covenantal meanings that seem so obviously present in the OT and NT?

[jmmanley]

Well I always hate to comment on these things b/c of how controversial it seems to be to say anything ever, but I'd like to offer my insight, take it or leave it: Reformed etc people dislike the NPP b/c they say, "We are saved by faith, not by works! Look how clear that is in Romans, etc" But I don't think the NPP is saying "we are saved by works, not by faith," rather it simply is trying to get a better overall definition of the terms "works" and "faith" and Gospel"

[SpeakingAboutJosh]

Its a good book, give the guy a break. I suggest if you like Wrights stuff, particularly the Jew-Gentile theology have a read of Justin Marytrs 'Dialogue with Trypho'. Very similar stuff coming out of the second century, just 100 years after Paul wrote Romans and Galatians. Its historical, the early Christians had very similar thoughts.

[KeithTruth]

John Piper refuted Wright beyond repair and so did Guy Prentiss Waters in his book. The new persective on Paul is a dangerous and destructive heresy.

[GusMcAttisonMusic]

I'll give you a thousand dollars to make the background music stop.

[brucefetter]

@GusMcAttisonMusic And chariots of fire for this? LOL

[ratrinko]

@candiceevans1 Cannot a person be an intellectual man of God ? Why do you make them separate ? And cannot reason be guided by discernment ? Or do you suppose someone can manage to read (or speak) without any intellectual activity whatsoever ?

A person's speaking style and emotional tenor is by no means an indication of their Godliness.

[duartefilnetcabo]

How you believers! Never see sufficiently close!

[redrocker79]

I am disappointed in Wright. He talks about how Paul's discussion on the topic of justification is LARGER than the one represented by John Piper. Wright says things like: "this doctrine is not just about me and how I get to heaven" (and) "the spotlight is not on me" (and) "it's about a bigger picture." Excuse me sir, but the classical reformed position on JUSTIFICATION is no SMALL PICTURE! You must re-read the works of the great reformers if you think anything otherwise.

[Riqon]

@redrocker79 I would have to disagree. The vision of the reformers were basically me-centred. They had no greater eschatological vision of a God seeking to redeem the world and restore Eden. Their view of the future was entirely ignorant of what Scripture teaches about these things, and they imagined that each soul would stand before the judgement seat at the moment of death. They can be forgiven for that as they were children of their age. But our knowledge of Scripture ought to be wider.

[brendos444]

@Riqon excellent point. The likes of Piper are, ultimately, close minded. What they have done is to, effectively, canonize Calvin. Instead of continually seeking the spirit and letting scripture continually challenge their views, they close up shop and barricade their precious ideals. It's a formula that destroys faith and does not enhance it.

[kkallebb]

I could have done without the distracting background music.

[buzzbuerling]

@kkallebb I have seen this video with no music we need to let the man speak. I think to many folks are hung up on rap these days music with a lot of talk. poetry and public speaking are better with no music.

[stmartin17773]

Get rid of the horrible music - leave the brilliance of Wright alone.

[raneroc]

The music was so distracting and annoying.

[Spattay]

@raneroc yea, the music is very annoying.

[JaffarDS]

@raneroc Sounds like Chariots of Fire

[n00bie51]

@raneroc Amen!

[Jen8973]

This is so wrong! It changes in a very clever but not very convincing argument for justification mean different things at different times. The whole argument of Romans 3&4 and Galatians make it clear that we are pronounced not guilty by faith alone in the work of Christ. This was the whole point of the Reformation. Luther was not just responding to what was going on but responlding against the loss of the true good news. Wright is not right.

[HoramaPhone]

@Jen8973 You really should read the book. Wright's etymological survey of dikaiosune should at least be taken seriously before being rejected. The work of Kenneth Bailey is also strongly recommended.

[damildlyshreddah]

This book has turned my theological worldview upside down. I really enjoyed Piper's "The Future of Justification" but Wright's book really opened my eyes (or rather, removed my Western-Calvinistic glasses) to understanding Paul within his proper context. I highly recommend this book. :)

[KeithTruth]

@damildlyshreddah Yeah you got deceived because you aren't regenerated that's all.

[damildlyshreddah]

@KeithTruth Nice to know that you have such great insight into my heart. So, keep huntin 'em heretics on teh interwebs and the Lord will surely reward you for your work for the kingdom.

[KeithTruth]

@damildlyshreddah It was a passing comment. But thank you for further confirming your unregenerate mind. I recommend D.A. Carson's refutation of the so called new perspective, take care.

[damildlyshreddah]

@KeithTruth Making such comments in passing is perhaps not too wise. Thankfully, it is the Lord who judges me when he comes.

I have listened to Carson's lectures and I have also read his summary chapter in "Justification and Variegated Nominism" -- a summary that has been criticized for having gone far beyond the findings of the individual articles themselves. I have read Piper's book as well, in fact, it was once one of my favorite books -- until I read Wright on the subject.

Take care, Keith

[KeithTruth]

@damildlyshreddah Read both Volumes of Justification and Variegated Nominism. I will pray God removes the blinders from your eyes.

[damildlyshreddah]

@KeithTruth I have read some of the articles and there is some good stuff in there. I will perhaps read the books in their full length when time allows. My mind is currently occupied with the issue of Irenaeus' christology. :-) I suggest you read both books as well, I guessing (although I might be wrong) that you have only read Carson's summery, at best.

Ah, I love those kinds of prayers. Not that there is anything wrong in their content, but it's just the cold way that they are delivered.

[KeithTruth]

@damildlyshreddah If you're wrong about TNPP, and you most certainly are, then that means you're believing in a destructive distortion of the Gospel - a fad. Please do read those books and pray hard about this. I apologize if I was rude but this stuff is quite shocking and terrifying with regard to people's salvation. I truly and genuinly hope you come to saving faith and receive forensic justification. Lord bless.

[VicLabs]

Forget Justification by Faith, who can justify this horrible music choice?

[Wintblash]

google Doe's Account.

[gextvedde]

Wright is always very clear. Even if one does not agree with him he can defintely be understood. Now why did they put that terrible Chariots of Fire rip off music in the background?!

[Christisms]

@gextvedde

They couldn't afford to hire Vangelis?

[revholland1]

No, Wright is not always clear. That's why all the confusion on how one can get right with God and have forgiveness of sins. Have read Piper's book, so better read Wrights I suppose. But don't think he'll be clear at all.....

[blessedwithoutmeasur]

What is the deal about justification I rather like what he said about it, Rightousness and justification are the most misunderstood in the body of christ , read pauls writings to the romans , romans 3 and romans 4 and romans 5, all talk about are rightousness with and through Him, and rightousness means right standing with God being able toi go before God as christians without a thought of shame or worthlessness, because of the blood of christ,and what He did for us,.

[Puchicas9]

Wright's explanation of the question starting at 2:58 is much closer to the early Orthodox view of salvation, which I have been learning about during my doctoral studies in Syriac over the last several years. In this view, Christ did not die to pay for a multitude of individual sins, but to re-open the way to Paradise that was closed when Adam and Eve sinned. Individuals joined the Church in order to be part of the group that benefitted from this re-opening. Very different from evangelicalism!

[brendos444]

@Puchicas9 I have found learning about Eastern Orthodoxy very liberating. Liberated from the shocking atonement view held by evangelical fundamentalists like Piper. Liberated from the shocking view of hell held by evangelicals. Liberated from the hyper-moralism taught by evangelicals. Liberated into God's love for humanity and his desire for all to join in his kingdom. (btw i'm not talking about universalism here, but God is truly love, and it is this view of him that has been distorted)

[Puchicas9]

Isn't it odd that at 0:52, when Wright mentions the Latin and Greek equivalents of "justification," the film shows a text in Hebrew--and upside down at that!

[TennesseeOwnsMyBones]

Sola scriptura, huh? Like Calvin, who chose to ignore certain biblical texts whenever they didn't suit his needs.

[jesusmystic]

I have read this book and I have followed Wright for some time now. None of the previous comments come close to being an accurate reflection of Wright's presentation on Paul's usage of "justification." Recommend that others actually read the book before the relay misinformation.

[SAOProductions1955]

Here's what Wright's believes and his own writings bear this out:

•sin is an impersonal evil force, not personal rebellion against God.

•sin has bad consequences, but does not elicit God's punitive wrath against the sinner.

•the cross is to be understood as some version of the Christus Victor theory in which Christ defeats evil by letting it do its worst to him, not as a penal satisfaction of divine justice.

Wright is the one who misunderstands Paul, and seeks to revise the gospel.

[KabaneTheChristian]

Really? That's a revision? The first time the heretical satisfaction doctrine was formulated was Anselm in the eleventh century. Who is doing the revising here?

[SAOProductions1955]

Wright is the revisionist in what he has written as a result of what he believes the atonement was for and what it accomplished. His written & spoken words speak for themselves. I'm not here debating the similarities between Anselms satisfaction theory (though it does have some merit but not without flaws) and that of the Magisterial Reformers, but how Wright's understanding of the need for atonement is reflected in his conception of Justification and what that means.

[CloudsofBliss]

@SAOProductions1955

No. It's you. He is connecting the dots based on Judaism.

[whatthsup]

Arminian100

Maybe you should stick more with solo scriptora instead of relying on the heretics of today. You should read into more brilliant scholars of the New Testament like Piper and Bart Ehrman.

[Arminian100]

you guys... think you are hillariousth!

Oh.... oh my gosh.

hahahaha, you're funny Kelcey.

[whatthsup]

Arminian100

I find your views unorthodox and unbiblical. Irenaeus, maybe Athanasius, might have agreed with Bishop Tom Wright, however, by just simply stating that they would, without the proper support, is failing to do good exegetical debating. In fact, you should read Jame D.G.Dunn on his paper on the NP because he argues that Iranaeus would not support NT Wright.

Maybe you should be the one that does his research better...not that your actually trying to get your PhD or anything.....

[brucefetter]

As an Eastern Orthodox Christian I find that Wright's approach is more inline with the Scriptures in their wholistic understanding of justification. I could  do without the chariots of fire soundtrack. :)

[ianat9]

I have been much impressed by Tom Wright's book. He does not deny justification by faith, but sets it in a much wider and breath-taking context

[GPLeague]

"The word justification is used to cover the entire process of salvation." Really? I'd like him to cite some examples of this. Careful theologians have always distinguished forensic justification from election, calling, regeneration, sanctification, and glorification. Sounds like he is departing from sola fide.

[heymikey802]

I'd side with Wright on the idea, but deny it was an ancient tactic. It's actually happened *in modern times* -- and I think it's an Enlightenment and Modernist mistake. I can't tell you the number of times I've heard pastors and yes, theologians talk about "salvation by faith alone" and then cite texts on *justification* by faith alone. Tracing back, it looks to've happened in the 1800's some time.

[Arminian100]

no, he's just putting "sola fide" in context. He isn't concerned about what reformed "carfeful theologians" have to say... he's concerned with what Paul says. You should try that sometime. You might find it refreshing. HAHA!

[GPLeague]

You're rude.

[Arminian100]

I apologize.

[GPLeague]

Accepted :)

[KabaneTheChristian]

Departing from sola fide? Oh noez! Not the novel doctrine that never appeared until the 16th century! Departing from that heresy? Oh noez!

[GPLeague]

It's a bit off-putting when a former self-proclaimed Calvinist changes his mind and then immediately starts leveling heresy charges. My advice to you is to take a few months and let your new theology sink in before you start to proselytize. Otherwise you're not much better than the newly convinced Calvinist that tries to convert every dreaded Arminian he comes across.

[KabaneTheChristian]

Truth doesn't become more solid the longer that I've believed it. I'm not proselytizing, I'm defending Wright from these loonies who think that "denying sola fide" is somehow self-evidently bad.

[GPLeague]

Truth doesn't become less solid if no one ever believes it. However, your demeanor hopefully will soften. It just comes off poorly when a new convert demeans his old position and then drops the h-bomb. Also,I wouldn't say self-evidently bad. I'm not a fan of dead dogma. I hold to sola fide because of its corollary, solus Christus. I hold that the imputed righteousness of Christ is the sole ground of our justification. The necessary works that inevitably follow are are non-meritorious.

[DonusAmbrose]

I would recommend Marius Victorinus' commentary on Galatians. He even uses the latin words and articulates the doctrine.

[lazarusparley]

what is up with the background music? it is horrible! get rid of it so that we can listen better to wright

[SAOProductions1955]

Knowing what I know about how Wright has redefined what Paul "really meant" and his N.P.P., writting "Justification" is just another attempt to solidify his standing within the "new perspective." I'll probably pick up a copy at the library at some point in the future, but I won't waste the $25 retail to plunk it on my bookshelf.

Wright contends that the church, and more specifically the reformers misunderstood & misconstrued Paul and he has come on the scene to tell us what Paul really meant.

[Credo325]

Sounds exciting!

[vico100]

Heretic...

[Arminian100]

yes, and who gave you the authority to declare such?

[vico100]

My head and websites on the internet regarding Wright.

[Arminian100]

haha. Odd. The Church would highly disagree with you. You don't have that authority. Also, Irenaeus and Athanasius would agree with him on Justification... are they heretics?

[vico100]

Im sorry, i am wrong, i don't know if his a heretic, (or those people that you mentioned) ...I was incorrect, i haven't done enough research to know.

[Arminian100]

I mean, I'm totally all for you disagreeing dude. I'm not sure I agree with 100% of his NPP. But to call the dude a heretic just goes way outside the lines. Thanks for reconsidering. Lets just try to keep in mind that most of these guys (especially Bishop Wright) are great church-men who love the LORD and are doing their best to help us understand HIS Word.

Take care.

[Arminian100]

Also, don't read blogs/internet sites. They're run by people who don't do first-hand reading, but take other people's opinions.

I would suggest reading his book "Justification" and maybe even "What Saint Paul Really Said."

and then read some of Douglass Moo's commentary on Romans. He argues against the NPP and does some excellent work. Then maybe check out Francis Watson's paper "Constructing a Hermeneutic." It is another critique of the NPP, but also arguing against the OPP. Take Care.

[KabaneTheChristian]

You, as an individual Protestant do not have the authority to call people heretics. Only the Church can call heresies.

[vico100]

No KabaneTheChristian, my own head grants me the authority ;)

(but I do admit, that time my head was incorrect).

[artboulet]

Great video. I'm really looking forward to reading this book.

Thanks for posting this!