Theologians and their theology.

[GraceAmbassador]

Is N.T. Wright backpedaling?

Many would think so by reading this article, however if you look the foundation of the article, you will have to consider whom me mentions he was debating against...
(By the way, this blog is almost entirely about N.T. Wright although the writer seems to be a Baptist).

http://trevinwax.com/2009/01/13/inte...justification/

I am particularly curious about the following points:

Does Paul not really teaches imputation of Christ's righteousness in terms of His obedience as Wright mentions in this answer:

N.T. Wright: Well, I set justification within the larger Pauline context, where it always comes, of God’s purposes to fulfill his covenant promise to Abraham and so to rescue the whole creation, humankind of course centrally included, from sin and death. Piper holds that Abrahamic context at arm’s length.
Second, I understand justification as basically a law-court term, where it means the judge’s creative declaration that a person is ‘in the right’ in terms of the lawcourt, whereas Piper holds that justification involves the accrediting to a person of the moral, not the forensic, ‘righteousness’ of Christ – something Paul never says (as J. I. Packer admits).

Are we really capable of refuting this claim? If so, how? Scriptures, please.

My purpose is that, due to the growth of N.T. Wright's teaching and some aura of romanticism that many are placing over his persona, (according to many, he is personable, affable, accessible and kind), how can we establish our point and position without resorting to what N.T. Wright considers "reformed tradition" and use the Bible against his claims?

Also, do you see or sense any backpedaling hidden on his words in this interview?

Please, elaborate.

Milt

[Robert R. Higby]

Wright is not correctly defining Reformed tradition; it has always included the forensic dimension of justification. He also confuses 'justification' as it is used Romans 8 with adoption and glorification--synthesizing all these into one.

We need to go beyond Reformed tradition, of course. 1 Cor. 1:30 is an example of where Paul equates justification with the whole of Christ's person and work-- He (in His Divine-human entirety) is made our justification in God's purpose. So justification is not forensic (a declared status) only, though the forensic aspect is definitely scriptural. It is both forensic and real, a right status from God AND the real imputation of God's rightness in Christ. This imputation is all of Christ's person and work, it can't be compartmentalized into His sufferings and death only.

[Saint Nicholas]

Introduction

I want to respond first by stating that this New Perspective on Paul, is not a new perspective at all. It may be new to Reformed and non Roman Catholic Christianity but most assuredly it is a return to the Roman Catholic perspective on Paul.

N.T. Wright and others of his persuasion would have been more honest and genuine if they would have called their perspective The Roman Catholic and Augustinian Perspective on Paul. Because that’s what it is. So by packaging this poison in a medicine bottle it would thus be easier for him to prescribe this medicine to an unsuspecting audience.

Those who never were born, raised, schooled, and studied the theology of Catholicism and Augustine would be more apt to drinking this poison.

The reformation was not at all a complete return to Pauline theology, but rather a starting point to that return.

Some great doctrines and theology came forth from that reformation by men who broke away from Popery. However, to their dismay I must state that the break from Rome was not complete by no means in great portions of reformed theology.

When Protestant sects started to codify their doctrines and confessions to maintain a specific identity, they made the same fatal error as their mother. It is very difficult for them to move forward in their quest for truth. They codified many cancerous seeds that should have also been expelled.

Now these cancerous seeds have grown to a proportion that is fatal to their health.

The very cancerous seeds of corrupted theology that plunged the Popish church into the Dark, Middle, and Medieval ages were planted by the post-apostolic fathers as they have been called. These seeds were nurtured and then grew till they bloomed and blossomed. They bloomed brightly in Augustinian Theology.


These cancerous seeds did not lie dormant. They continued to grow and bloomed again brightly in Thomas Aquinas.

These were the Rome’s finest flowers, their doctors, their mentors.

The men of the reformation only killed a few of the cancerous seeds but many seeds still remained. Not only did the cancerous seeds remain but have grown to this very day and will find another great blossoming when all the separated brethren return home to their mother.

This return need not be an actual conversion to Roman Catholicism, however many a protestant churchman did defect to Rome, but she will accept a full ecumenical unity only when the Council of Trent’s view of Justification is accepted and taught in non-catholic churches.

This is exactly what N.T. Wright and others are doing, in which many other devils have done in the past. The signers of ECT1, ECT 2, Evangelicals and Catholics Together, Lutherans and Catholics Together, are devils in sheep’s clothing.

Who is this mother you may ask. She is the great imposter. She is the one proclaiming she is the one true holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. Holding the Keys of the Kingdoms of Heaven and Hell. But she is a beast and the ruination of all mankind.

As our Lord Jesus Christ said to the devils of His day. "Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves."

She has assembled herself with these previous devils in all manner of evils. For they are the same evil spirits who have worked throughout the ages to dethrone God and His Christ. Her crusades against mankind throughout the centuries has subjected mankind to rigorous tortures of body, mind and soul. Exalting the Holy Name of Jesus Christ only to put Him to an open shame.

Through her "Great Inquisition" she had tortured men and Saints of God with devices and machinery that only devils from hell could invent. Her Jesuits ( counter-reformers) defended her treachery with the highest loyalty known to man. Then and to this day they never cease their scheming as to destroy the reformation once and for all. The completion of that goal is near.

In my estimation ten years from now the full corn Gospel of Pauline Justification by Faith Alone in Christ Alone, will be foreign within ALL visible Christian Seminaries and in the world of professed Christianity.

Only the regenerate elect will possess such sweetness to their soul. However they will be heretics in the eyes of these religious Pharisees. Those of us who have advanced and further clarified this doctrine of Justification are even now considered heretics in the eyes of the ecumenical world.

Her lust and appetite for power over the souls of mankind is unquenchable. She will not rest till all mankind be foul and ruined as her. For God had ordained her to this very end. To go forth and deceive mankind.

But some may say to her defense "does she not teach and accept the Holy Trinity?"

Oh foolish one, you have not known the depths of wickedness, for it is but a pretense, the bait on the hook to ensnare the souls of men.

In every vestige of her putrid dogmas and doctrines she dismantles and dethrones the very Holy Trinity she claims to know. She sits as queen but is a whore. She has committed whoredom with all that would touch her garment.

She is so devious, cunning, and deceptive, that those whose eyes have not been enlightened by the Holy Spirit, will acquiesce to her vain imaginations.

Our Lord Jesus Christ said "For false Christs and false prophets shall rise, and shall shew signs and wonders, to seduce, if it were possible, even the elect."

Her priests and popes are none other than false Christs and false prophets. Through her sacraments, superstitious liturgies, bleeding eucharist’s, Marion apparitions, and all machinations she manifests through lying signs and wonders, all this is to seduce mankind.

All of non-elect professing Christendom has been seduced and are being seduced. They came out from her during the reformation and they must return to her. For they and their ministers are the vessels of wrath fitted for the destruction of mens souls.

But we who have been chosen by God and having been transformed from darkness to light by the Holy Spirit shall stand victorious in the midst of this darkness. For we cannot be deceived.

Vatican II was a masterpiece of subterfuge for Rome. Since then we have seen not only a rise of Christian ecumenical unity with Rome but added to that, worldwide religious syncretism.

No true follower of Jesus Christ should have any part in this Satanic unity.

The Elect bride of Jesus Christ which is the true ekklesia stands on the purity of the doctrine of Justification. Without it, she would fall to the depths of hell if that were possible.

There can be no turning back.

Nicholas.

　
In this next section we will take a look at some Protestants who converted to Catholicism and some of their comments.
　
Comments from Taylor Marshall

Who is Taylor Marshall?

In short Taylor Marshall is an ex Episcopal priest who converted to Roman Catholicism in May of 2006.

http://cantuar.blogspot.com/2007/09/about-taylor-marshall.html
http://cantuar.blogspot.com/2008/03/...ic-church.html
　
Here is a brief excerpt of his assessment of N. T. Wright.

"Some earnest Protestants are now scratching their heads and saying to themselves: "You know, everything we've always assumed that Paul taught isn't actually articulated by Paul. Maybe it's time to rethink the entire systematic theology that we (Protestants) erected in the 16th-17th century."

If you buy into Wright's covenantal realism, you've already taken three steps toward the Catholic Church.

It's almost as if Wright dug deeply into Paul's writings until finally he came to a door. When he opened the door, to everyone's surprise, he found that he was standing in the Council of Trent!"

Taylor the now loyal Papist is correct in stating that Wright is back in Trent.

Taylor also wrote a book entitled "The Catholic Perspective on Paul" Nothing new here. On my bookshelves, I have plenty of Catholic theology that pertains to Paul and the church. That is why I can assert that N.T. Wright is a Papist, deceiver and heretic.

Is it any wonder that Protestants are defecting and going home to their mother? Not really.

Unregenerate mankind always attempts to dethrone God and elevate man, the church, and his works. This is the very nature of sinful man. This is the very nature of antichrist.

What can we say to the very martyrs that were burned at the stake, imprisoned, and tortured. Their blood was spilled till the valleys and rivers ran red by the hands of the Papist devils. And dumb Protestants are now scratching their heads about Paul and Justification? What treason!

That’s like saying the very men who spilled their blood during the Revolution to gain our freedoms from England were wrong.

These dumb and blind Protestants deserve the bondage that’s in store for them.

This very darkness is ordained by God to punish these Protestants, non-catholics, and all who enjoy communion with this whore.
The list of Protestants that converted to Rome is endless.

More to come..........
　
　



　
　
　
　
　
　
　
　
　

[Craig kennedy]

Nicholas writes:

"In my estimation ten years from now the full corn Gospel of Pauline Justification by Faith Alone in Christ Alone, will be foreign within ALL visible Christian Seminaries and in the world of professed Christianity."

How frightening! How scary!

Nicholas has certainly written a stirring article warning of the modern attacks upon the Pauline doctrine of Justification by Faith Alone in Christ Alone. I love this truth and have had my understanding of it enhanced through this excellent post.

In Christ, Craig

[Robert R. Higby]

I really shouted 'amen' to your whole post, Nicholas!

N.T. Wright and others of his persuasion would have been more honest and genuine if they would have called their perspective The Roman Catholic and Augustinian Perspective on Paul. Because that’s what it is.

That's right. The deception lies in the fact that Wright and his followers try to synthesize Protestant, Roman Catholic, and Eastern Orthodox tradition together in such a manner that the horse APPEARS (only) to have a different color. There is a lot of emphasis on (Eastern) Resurrection theology of 'triumph' and joy (in contrast to Rome) and a big deal is made out of the fact that the RCC has emphasized mainly a theology of suffering. In addition, there is the emphasis on 'covenant' ala the Reformed Protestants. So Wright followers try and distinguish themselves from the RCC on these points. The crowning argument of the Wright people is: although they proclaim assurance of inclusion in the covenant based on subjective obedience, they deny the perfectionism of Rome and accept the Protestant doctrine that there will be no sinless perfection this side of glory.

In reality, it is a new way of packaging the same old theology--though in certain details it has taken on a different shape. I'm only pointing all of this out to equip us with the knowledge of how the Wright followers will claim that we have misrepresented them.

--Bob

[trav]

Thank you so much for that Nick. I can't help but think of Scott Hahn, Patrick Madrid, Francis Beckwith, etc..... I've read their books and they aren't worthy to be put on a cardboard roll next to the toilet. They are devils. And also as you stated, most "protestant" churches are in line with the RCC in one way or another. I was raised in Hardcore Pentecostalism and it is as Satanic as it gets in my opinion. Thanks again Nick for your insight.

[Saint Nicholas]

Before continuing my estimation on N.T. Wright’s overall perspectives on Paul, I would like to thank Robert and others for their added insights in which I would agree.

Wright in his perspective on Paul is trying to find a way to minimize the differences within professing Christianity by reworking the doctrine of Justification to make it more palatable to the Papacy. In this he was successful.

Wright tries to soften the force of Justification by faith alone (imputation) as taught by Luther, Calvin, and others by avoiding the language of imputation.

Wright’s views are not 100% in line with the Papacy on this point, however the core premise of how one is declared righteous (The Verdict) is the same. For the grounds find themselves in man and not Christ alone. The means to that end are very similar also but not exact. In other words, Wright’s views on Justification, The Church, Sacramental Theology, The Clergy, The Laity, Good Works, are nothing really new here. To Wright, they are necessary to one’s final and ultimate eschatological Justification ala Augustine and Rome.

Below I will provide statements from Wright himself. My comments will be in blue letters. The source can be read in the link provided below.

http://www.ivpress.com/title/ata/wright_qa.pdf

Because there is so much he has written, I will provide just small segments per post.

Nicholas


Wright.."The word justify means "to find in favor of." So that if you are justified by the court, a declaration has gone out that in terms of this law suit, you are in the right, and you leave thecourt without a stain on your character. Now that might apply to the plaintiff or to the defendant. But obviously if the whole world is guilty, then we’re all defendants. So then ifsome people are justified, it means that God has announced that despite the fact that we’re sinners, we are nevertheless leaving the court in the right."

He’s close here but not at all completely correct in his wording. It is true God the judge rules "to find in favor of" but this statement is weak. The verdict of Justification actually is a declaration of Righteousness . God sees the sinner equally righteous as Jesus Christ Himself without sin and seated at the right hand of God in Christ. We do not await a future eschatological Justification (verdict) for we have indeed already been Justified completely in Christ. We await and long for Glorification, the new Heaven and Earth, the resurrection of our bodies, which are the blessings, promises, inheritances, and fruits of Justification.

"Now, it’s a very odd thing, because the Bible says in the Old Testament that the
righteousness judge should not justify people who are wicked."

This is true and also the main scriptural argument the Papacy leveled against Luther and other reformers that taught Imputation. Wright is going to use this argument to overthrow Imputation.


"So the question is, how on earth can God actually do that?

And this is made sharper when we add in the second factor,
which is eschatology, that is, Paul’s vision of the ultimate future and the way that it comes
forward into the present. Because in the ultimate future, as we see in Romans 2, Paul says
that God is going to judge the whole human race justly according to the totality of the life
that has been lived. Paul says to those who are patient in well-doing and seeking for glory
and honor and immortality, God will give them eternal life, and for those who are fractious
and don’t obey the truth, God will provide wrath and fury."

Here at this point Wright is building a case for the synthesis of Justification and Sanctification as we shall see further.

"Many Christians, many devout Reformation Christians, have been puzzled, because here in
Romans 2 we have, as it were, justification by works, or so it seems. But, of course, what
Paul is talking about there is the entirety of the life that has been led. And the point about
justification by faith is that God brings forward that ultimate declaration into the present, so
that the moment that somebody believes in Jesus, whatever their moral, cultural, racial
background, etc., that person is declared to be in the right already, ahead of the verdict on
the last day."

Can you see what he has done in the above statement???....He has shifted the ground/basis of acceptance away from the Imputation of Christ’s entire life and righteousness, toward mans life of foreseen and anticipated good works.
So in his scheme, the final, real, actual, true, and ultimate verdict of righteousness can only be declared at the last day based on man’s faithfulness and obedience. So when God ultimately declares a man righteous (Justifies him), He (God) can rightly base this verdict of the totality of ones Spirit filled/led life of obedience and good works. Classical Augustianism!

"One of the key problems, though, is that eschatological thing, that final justification. And
many people hearing what I’ve just said would say, "Oh, my goodness, so we’re justified by
faith at the moment, but then we have to be justified by works ultimately." To that Paul
would say, "You’re forgetting about the role of the Holy Spirit." Paul’s doctrine of
justification is profoundly Trinitarian. Many doctrines of justification through the years
have actually kept the Spirit a bit at arms length and have not factored in what for Paul is
absolutely vital, that when somebody becomes a Christian, even the faith by which they
believe, Paul says, is the result of the Holy Spirit’s working through the grace-filled
preaching of the gospel of Jesus. I’m thinking of 1 Thessalonians, I’m thinking of Galatians
and many other passages we could call in at this point."

Again in his above statement concerning Justification, he clearly confounds God’s work for us (imputed merits of Christ) with God’s work in us ( regeneration, faith, good works.). We are not forgetting the role of the Holy Spirit. We are correctly defining that role. All workings of the Holy Spirit in our life can never be a basis or ground of Justification.

"The result is that when somebody then lives the kind of life which in Christ is honoring to
God, it isn’t that they are earning their final justification by their own efforts; it is already
given; it’s a datum; it’s part of who they are in Christ from the moment they believe and are
baptized. Rather it is the Spirit working in them, through them, so that they are freely
choosing to do what the Spirit wants them to do."

You notice he keeps referring to this final or ultimate Justification idea. He clearly is arguing the case that a person can live this Christ honoring life and merit by the assistance of the Holy Spirit a final and ultimate verdict of Justification. This is Augustinian and Roman Catholic at heart. To Wright, Christ’s death and Resurrection only facilitated to make this all possible.
　
"There is then a fascinating, and for Paul quite difficult, way of describing how it is both me
doing it and the Spirit doing it. You see Paul doing this when he says, "I worked harder than
all of them; yet it was not I but the grace of God which was with me," or words to that effect.I think that is a normal Christian response. For Paul there isn’t the problem that Post-
Reformation theologians have had about saying that the works that we do in the power of
the Spirit are part of the sign on the final day that we are indeed the people whom God will
raise from the dead, whom he will ultimately justify"

Now Wright infers that the Apostle Paul had no problem in boasting his good works as long as we give God the credit for those good works. He again use that "ultimately justify" language. Wright does not mention the scripture where Paul emphatically states that all his works are nothing but dung.

However Wright may say that Paul was referring to his dead works?? That would be the only way out of his dilemma.
　
"Now because many people have tried to get a Pauline doctrine of justification without really
understanding how Paul’s law court language works, they have often slid off into talk of
relationality. They say justification is a relational doctrine because what happens when you
become a Christian is that you establish a personal relationship with God in Christ. People
think that justification is really talking about me and God becoming friends, or me
discovering that Jesus is real and alive and I can get to know him. I want to say those are
enormously important, but that’s not justification. That is reconciliation, which goes with it,
but it’s not the same thing."

Now to be fair, there is some merit to his above statement. We should never confound root and fruit. But I see him now using this to build a strawman argument to overthrow the real purpose of Justification as we will see below.
　
"Back to the car again. It’s the difference between the steering wheel and the starter motor.You need both in order to drive the car. They correlate, but they’re not the same thing. Some people make the mistake of thinking that justification is just about me and God becoming friends, whereas the point of the law court is not that the judge and the defendant can go offand have a drink together afterwards. The point is what the judge has said about the defendant, and the declaration which gives that person a new status or standing in the community."

Here he continues building the strawman. And it is a good one I may add. He is consistent in maintaining the distinction between the legal and moral aspects of Justification. The fruits of Justification are indeed becoming friends with God. We do drink and eat together with Christ spiritually. But these are fruits and benefits of Justification. Now his usage of "new status or standing in the community" is important for us to understand. This is where he is leading us . To Wright and the Federal Vision adherents, via Baptism and entrance to this community called the church we now then have a new status and standing in the community. To Wright this is an initial Justification but not a final one.

"Likewise some people have thought that, because they really haven’t grappled with the
Israel context, the covenant context of it all, that you can construct a theology of justification which is simply about me being seen by God to be a good sort of person, despite the fact that I’m not. So they have got this idea of the righteousness of Christ as though Jesus Christ himself, by living a perfect sinless moral life, has, as it were, acquired a stock of something called righteousness which he can then bequeath to us or cover us with so that when God looks at us he sees the righteousness of Christ."

Here it is!!! Do you see what he has done??? This man is clever! He builds a good strawman argument in the context of not confounding root and fruit. And this is true. However, he now uses that argument and shifts to an attack on the legal declaration of Justification itself. He is attacking Imputation period! He changed the context.

We fools who don’t understand Paul like Wright does, have some sort of crazy idea that we have acquired Christ’s righteousness, so that when God looks at us He sees the Righteousness of Christ. How awful a thing that we should presume on the Grace of God like this according to Wright.

"I understand what that doctrine is trying to do, but actually Paul achieves the same end by a different means when in Romans 6 he says that when you are baptized as a believing
Christian, then you have died with Christ and been raised with him, and that means when
God looks at you he sees you as someone who has died and been raised in Christ. Again–I
mean there are so many distortions and peculiarities about the doctrine and the way it’s
developed, we could go on all day–but in particular many have tried to expound justification
without factoring in that whole Pauline theme of being in Christ, which is absolutely
essential to justification in Romans and Galatians, the two primary texts. Yet some people
have felt that that’s a rather confusing side issue, and so have pushed it away a bit, whereas for John Calvin, one of the great biblical theologians of the Reformation period, being justified in Christ was absolutely central."

All we have seen thus far from Wright is:

1) Justification means a new status or standing in the community.

2) Justification after water baptism means God sees you as someone who has died and been raised in Christ.

3) Justification means "to find in favor of"

4) Justification is a process that leads to the ultimate or final Justification.

These points are equally true to Roman Catholicism and other heretical groups who have abandoned Imputation. They are starting points to a final Justification for them.

Yes, Justification is absolutely central and core to all our understanding of scripture.

All areas of theology must be governed by a correct understanding of this doctrine.

The body of Christ stands on the correct view of Justification.

More to follow,

[Robert R. Higby]

On these issues I personally view Wright as a medieval papist and not a Tridentine papist. His doctrine of justification is analytical, not effective. Both versions of the papal doctrine are heresy of course--they both place the ground of justification (and merit) before God within the sinful soul.

Wright is affirming that God's eschatological (final) verdict of justification is based on human character renewed by the Holy Spirit instead of the unmerited and alien rightness of Jesus Christ.

[Brandan Kraft]

NT Wright wrote:

So they have got this idea of the righteousness of Christ as though Jesus Christ himself, by living a perfect sinless moral life, has, as it were, acquired a stock of something called righteousness which he can then bequeath to us or cover us with so that when God looks at us he sees the righteousness of Christ."

Yup, that's also called the GOOD NEWS of Jesus Christ. I would have NO HOPE without that "something" called the imputed righteousness of Christ.

[GraceAmbassador]

I don't know if I am off here, but correct me if I am wrong: The obsession of these theologians, such as Wright, in finding connections in every tittle and iota of what anyone, such as Paul, writes in the N.T. with either the cultural aspects of the O.T. and the N.T. leads them to a (intentional or not) ignorance of the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. What I am referring to is his constant mentioning that "if Paul was saying what the Reformer taught about justification by faith alone, which includes the imputation of the obedience and perfectness of Christ, then we have to admit that Paul did not know the court system of his days."
I'd say, Paul knew the court system of his days but the H.S. had a better idea for him to present the doctrine of the Imputation of Christ's righteousness. Not everything, not every comparison in the Bible is to be compared to what the inspired author knew about that subject based on his culture; some things are purely the inspiration of the Holy Spirit! After all NOTHING in the culture of those days, Jewish or Hellenistic, had anything similar for a God who became a perfect human, yet remaining fully God, and died for the sins of others. Am I correct? So, although I agree that sometimes it is necessary to see what is that the author knew about the issue he is writing based on his culture and knowledge, I don't think that we should ignore that the Holy Spirit can, will and did inspire something far superior, as in the revelation of the Incarnation, life, death and resurrection of Christ and so HE DOES in the doctrine of Imputation.
Do I make sense?

Milt

[Highlyfavored]

I don't know if I am off here, but correct me if I am wrong: The obsession of these theologians, such as Wright, in finding connections in every tittle and iota of what anyone, such as Paul, writes in the N.T. with either the cultural aspects of the O.T. and the N.T. leads them to a (intentional or not) ignorance of the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. What I am referring to is his constant mentioning that "if Paul was saying what the Reformer taught about justification by faith alone, which includes the imputation of the obedience and perfectness of Christ, then we have to admit that Paul did not know the court system of his days."
I'd say, Paul knew the court system of his days but the H.S. had a better idea for him to present the doctrine of the Imputation of Christ's righteousness. Not everything, not every comparison in the Bible is to be compared to what the inspired author knew about that subject based on his culture; some things are purely the inspiration of the Holy Spirit! After all NOTHING in the culture of those days, Jewish or Hellenistic, had anything similar for a God who became a perfect human, yet remaining fully God, and died for the sins of others. Am I correct? So, although I agree that sometimes it is necessary to see what is that the author knew about the issue he is writing based on his culture and knowledge, I don't think that we should ignore that the Holy Spirit can, will and did inspire something far superior, as in the revelation of the Incarnation, life, death and resurrection of Christ and so HE DOES in the doctrine of Imputation.
Do I make sense?

Milt

You make perfect sense Milt, unfortunately N.T. Wrong and others like him make no sense at all. But that's probably due to the lack of inspiration on their lives.

[Robert R. Higby]

For those who have not yet heard it, this is a SUPERB lecture on the theology of N.T. Wright. I have posted this link before but if you missed hearing this teaching by the late Dr. John Robbins 6 years ago I strongly recommend listening to the entire message.

http://www.trinitylectures.org/MP3/W...llection13.mp3

[Saint Nicholas]

In closing this segment pertaining to Wright’s view of Justification I will add just a few more observations. Then close this portion.

Wright....”For some people in some Christian traditions, the doctrine of justification expressed in a particular way has been the absolute fulcrum, the lynch pin, the thing that’s held everything together. So that if they think people are expounding it in different ways, it looks as though their entire theological edifice is going to come crashing down.”

Wright is beginning to close his explanations by building a case against those of us who see justification as central and primary to a correct understanding of God’s plan to save His chosen people. Wright is correct at stating that we see the entire theological edifice of those who obscure and deny imputation to come crashing down.

“For the Jew salvation is something that is given because you’re a Jew. God brought Israel out of Egypt as a great act of grace in fulfillment of his covenant promises to Abraham, that he gave Israel the law. This was not to say, “If you keep the law, I’ll save you,” but “Now that you’re saved, here’s the law, and this is your way of life.” It was for a people already rescued.

“Now that’s foundational for Judaism, and much Reformation thought, particularly in the Lutheran tradition, has just got that plain wrong. Judaism was not a religion which said, if you climb up this ladder of the law, then eventually you’ll get rescued. It is instead, you’ve been rescued, now here’s the law. Calvin got that right, whereas Luther basically got it wrong.”


Wright is now introducing the issue of the “third use of the law” stating Calvin was right and Luther was wrong.

Why is this aspect so important to Wright in his explanation of Justification? How does this correlate?

In Wright’s view of “Covenant” he see’s the Institution of the Church as almost an identical parallel with Old Testament Israel. In other words God rescued Israel from Egypt first, then gave them law. So the law was after their “salvation”. However, why has Wright not mentioned Deuteronomy 28?? Should not that also parallel with the Church? It Should also would it not for the sake of consistency?

In my estimation, Deuteronomy 28 poses a big problem for his covenantal view of Justification.

For the nation of Israel to maintain their salvation they must be obedient to ALL the law. Of course they failed, finally culminating in the rejection of Jesus Christ, in which God cast them off forever.

The parallel maintains it’s correctness only if we see Jesus Christ fulling Deuteronomy 28 for us. And He did ! Christ was the fulfiller of the Law Covenant on behalf of His elect people. I agree with Luther. Calvin was wrong in maintaining a further function of the law in Wright’s context.

As to Wright’s views on Justification this “third use of the law” is critical.
To Wright, after water baptism and entrance to the Church, God has now rescued a people. They have a new status and standing in the community, God’s in favor of them now. However to reach an ultimate and final verdict of Justification, they must cooperate with Grace/Holy Spirit in such a way as to merit the final verdict. Although differing with Calvin, in that Calvin seen this as perseverance of the Saints and not a final verdict of Justification.

Just read the below statements from Wright. He is reiterating his case again for the inner renewal of man as a ground for Justification. This is how he views “the third use of law”


“The problem than comes with this second stage thing. Does your final salvation, does the final renewal, the new age, the new heavens and the new earth, does that depend on your moral effort, or is that somehow a gift of grace as well?”

“In the New Testament there is not only this extreme clarity about Jesus and his death and resurrection as the foundation of it all, but also the extreme clarity about the Holy Spirit.”

“...Whereas the Spirit in the New Testament is this powerful, personal, intimate influence, enabling one to reshape one’s life so that as Paul says, I’m working very hard, but it’s actually God the Holy Spirit working within me. That is the paradox of the Spirit who is working in me, enabling me to become more truly myself, to walk tall as a human being while knowing it is God doing it.”



“...the Holy Spirit enabling people to become genuine human beings who can actually by God’s grace exercise the moral effort required to have their lives transformed.”



What’s all this? Nothing really new here. If you visit a Christian bookstore today, you will find thousands of books that focus and emphasize inward renewal, the victorious life, the changed life, the life of peace, the Spirit-filled life, walking in the power of the Holy Spirit. etc. etc. This is all focusing on subjective aspects. This is not the Good News, This is not the Gospel.

Christianity has been drowning in the see of subjectivism for quite some time now!



Wright...“One of the things that I’ve been frustrated and puzzled about in some of the debates that have gone on and in messages on blog sites and so on, is that people have often said things that imply that I, Tom Wright, don’t believe, for instance, in substitutionary atonement. Or that I don’t believe in justification by grace through faith. And I want to say to them, “Here. Read my lips. Look what I’ve done, look what I’ve written. I’ve been preaching and writing about substitutionary atonement and justification by grace through faith for twenty or thirty years now.”



We should never knowingly say things that are not true of others. Wright, the Papacy, along with all his ecumenical comrades do indeed teach Justification by Grace through faith. However, without the imputation of the alien extrinsic righteousness of Jesus Christ, it’s useless.



Wright.....”when people talk about the imputed righteousness of Christ–that’s been such a buzz word, not for all Reformation folk, but for a lot of them–then I want to say, yes, when God looks at me, thank God, he sees me, not as I am by myself, but in Christ. That’s the truth which Romans 6 was written to expound. But when Paul expounds it, he does not mean that God sees me as perfectly morally righteous because Christ has completed moral righteousness. It means he sees me as having died to sin and come alive to him in Christ.”



I sense after reading Wright, that because he has seen so many abuses and false claims by those in Christianity, his answer is to abandon the correct understanding of Imputation and substitute a subjective view of Justification aiding and abetting of course the Papist view.



In the above quote, he attempts to offer an either or situation. However, God does see us as perfectly righteous in Christ. Also we have died to sin and come alive to Christ. One is root and the other is fruit.It’s not an either or situation.



Luther, Calvin, myself, and other writers on this forum never think or have taught that Justification means God sees me literally inherently sinless (perfectly morally righteous). But rather God IN CHRIST sees and treats me as if I were as righteous as Christ Himself. God calls those things (me a sinner) that be not (righteous) as though they were (righteous). Nothing theoretical here. By Faith alone we are complete in Christ!


God never depends on the final substance of a thing, to call it a thing.

When God said “let there be light” he then brought light into existence. The decree is always first.

God made Abraham a father of many nations before Abraham had any children. How can you be called a father without children? Well God said he was period! That's the decree. It was impossible for Abraham not to have children. Even considering Sarah's dead womb. It still was a fact.


When God from Eternity in Christ decreed to Justify a people for Himself he was not dependent on some sinless quality/substance of perfection in you or I, but rather declared them in Christ as Justified. In glorification after the shedding of this body of sin and death, we will be inherently without sin.

But God does not look to the final state of our being as a ground for His verdict. For God has a perfect ground already. A ground that we could never attain or be. That ground is God Himself in Christ.

..”The point that the Reformed tradition is trying to make is indeed a Pauline point, but because they’re making it, I would say, from the wrong texts and in the wrong ways, it comes out distorted, and then generates other second-order distortions, if you like. This lands upwith us going to particular texts. 2 Corinthians 5:21 is a famous one where Paul says, “For our sake God made Him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.” I have argued there that this doesn’t mean what the Reformed tradition has made it mean, that the righteousness of God or of Christ is imputed to us. If that were so, why would Paul say, “become.” It’s not the same meaning. Righteousness for Paul here, as in Romans, is not a quality of God which is imputed to people; it is the fact that God himself is righteousness, which means he is faithful to the covenant, he deals properly with sin, he upholds and vindicates those who are weak and defenseless, and he does so totally impartially. You can see all of that going on in Romans.”


Here Wright tips his hand again. It is clear to me at least that he hates the true Pauline doctrine of Justification by an Imputed Righteousness. And I could see why. For it is none other than the “Rock of Offence” for those who are perishing.


According to Wright, how can this very righteous God who is forever Holy ever countenance the idea of declaring a people Righteous when in fact they are not?


I will say thus, God Himself is righteous. God Himself is faithful to the covenant. God does deal properly with sin. Thank God for the Cross of Christ. God upholds and vindicates impartially those of us elect who are weak and defenseless. And finally God does all this because He has already Justified me in Christ.


The “become” in 2 Cor 5:21 Wright uses in his defense against imputation. But he is very wrong here in my opinion. The point of Paul’s statement is that “in Him (Christ) we might become”. Paul states it this way to show there is no other way to be righteousness. It must be In Him/Christ firstly.


Secondly let’s look at this “might become” wording. Some understand this wording to mean several things.


1) A possibility to become righteous (imputed) with no absolute guarantees. A mere possibility to that end only. Conditioned and fulfilled by faith alone.


2) A possibility of inherent (infused) righteousness. Being made sinless. No absolute guarantees. A mere possibility to that end only. Conditioned and fulfilled by faith and cooperation with grace.


3) A statement of fact that we are declared righteous before God in Christ.


The word “might” in the Greek is dunamai. Depending on the context it can mean different things:


To be able or possible
can
could
may
might
be of power
be possible

Let’s look at other texts where this same word is used. Since Wright is using the English Standard Version to isolate this one verse we shall do likewise in using the ESV.



Romans 3:26 (ESV)

“It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.”


Does this mean that Christ might be just and the justifier? Or just another way of stating the fact that Christ is just and the justifier. Can we really have doubt that Christ is just? So the wording might be in this context can never cast any doubt about Christ.


Now I’m going to compare the ESV with the New King James to make my point even clearer in the next verses.


Rom 4:11
(ESV) “He received the sign of circumcision as a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised. The purpose was to make him the father of all who believe without being circumcised, so that righteousness would be counted to them as well,”

(NKJ) “And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had while still uncircumcised, that he might be the father of all those who believe, though they are uncircumcised, that righteousness might be imputed to them also,”


In the NKJ, the usage of might be is found twice in this verse. However the ESV translates both instances as an already accomplished fact. “Was to make” and “would be counted” not “might be”.


Rom 4:16
(ESV) “That is why it depends on faith, in order that the promise may rest on grace and be guaranteed to all his offspring—not only to the adherent of the law but also to the one who shares the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all,”


(NKJ) “Therefore it is of faith that it might be according to grace, so that the promise might be sure to all the seed, not only to those who are of the law, but also to those who are of the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all”


Do you see how might be is rendered in the ESV? No doubts, just stating facts. In fact, the ESV translates the second might be as an actual guarantree!


Rom 4:18
(ESV) “In hope he believed against hope, that he should become the father of many nations, as he had been told, "So shall your offspring be."

(NKJ) “who, contrary to hope, in hope believed, so that he became the father of many nations, according to what was spoken, “So shall your descendants be.”

(KJV) “Who against hope believed in hope, that he might become the father of many nations, according to that which was spoken, So shall thy seed be.


For this verse I used the KJV to show that the might become is not a possibility for Abraham but is a fact. He became or should become which are the same in context.


Getting back to 2 Corinthians 5:21

(KJV)“For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him”


(ESV) “For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.


(Young’s LT) “for him who did not know sin, in our behalf He did make sin, that we may become the righteousness of God in him.”

(CEB) “God caused the one who didn’t know sin to be sin for our sake so that through him we could become the righteousness of God.


Since the Greek words are the same in all the above verses. I find no reason to exempt 2 Cor 5:21 from meaning an already accomplished fact within the full context of that verse.

In view of all the other portions of scripture relating to an imputed righteousness/Justification, I cannot see this verse to be void of imputation.


I do hope this was helpful.

In the next segment, we are going to look at the doctrine of Justification according to Thomas Aquinas.



In Christ,

Nicholas

[GraceAmbassador]

I sense after reading Wright, that because he has seen so many abuses and false claims by those in Christianity, his answer is to abandon the correct understanding of Imputation and substitute a subjective view of Justification aiding and abetting of course the Papist view.



In the above quote, he attempts to offer an either or situation. However, God does see us as perfectly righteous in Christ. Also we have died to sin and come alive to Christ. One is root and the other is fruit.It’s not an either or situation.



Luther, Calvin, Myself, and others writers on this forum never think or have taught that Justification means God sees me literally inherently sinless (perfectly morally righteous). But rather God IN CHRIST sees and treats me as if I were as righteous as Christ Himself. God calls those things (me a sinner) that be not (righteous) as though they were (righteous). Nothing theoretical here. By Faith alone we are complete in Christ!

You found the key here, my brother! I think that is Holy Spirit inspiration!
We have to consider other verses such as in Colossians 2:10 where Paul, in context, clearly establishes a correlation between God FULLY (completely) being in Christ and we being COMPLETE (fully) in Christ. I really believe that Wright did not study his theology very well. The word COMPLETE is the same word used for FULFILLED in many verses of the N.T. such as these: Mat. 1:22, Mat. 2:15, Mat. 2:17, Mat. 2:23, Mat. 3:15 and in verses where it says: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet... (so and so). Can you imagine any other understanding of a FULFILLED PROPHECY, as something that has to be still COMPLETED, when the text is obviously is saying that that particular prophecy has been COMPLETE (fulfilled)? Our justification is COMPLETE, (fulfilled).

The blessed English language provides a very easy way to understand this, which is in line with what St. Nick said above, and that is: "Justified, is that in Christ it is JUST IF I'D HAD NOT SINNED."
Is this or not in line with this:

Luther, Calvin, Myself, and others writers on this forum never think or have taught that Justification means God sees me literally inherently sinless (perfectly morally righteous). But rather God IN CHRIST sees and treats me as if I were as righteous as Christ Himself. God calls those things (me a sinner) that be not (righteous) as though they were (righteous). Nothing theoretical here. By Faith alone we are complete in Christ!

Anyway, thanks Brother for your insight. Thank you, thank you and thank you again!

Milt

[Brandan Kraft]

Nicholas, your posts were outstanding and very helpful. Thank you!

[Saint Nicholas]

You found the key here, my brother! I think that is Holy Spirit inspiration!
We have to consider other verses such as in Colossians 2:10 where Paul, in context, clearly establishes a correlation between God FULLY (completely) being in Christ and we being COMPLETE (fully) in Christ. I really believe that Wright did not study his theology very well. The word COMPLETE is the same word used for FULFILLED in many verses of the N.T. such as these: Mat. 1:22, Mat. 2:15, Mat. 2:17, Mat. 2:23, Mat. 3:15 and in verses where it says: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet... (so and so). Can you imagine any other understanding of a FULFILLED PROPHECY, as something that has to be still COMPLETED, when the text is obviously is saying that that particular prophecy has been COMPLETE (fulfilled)? Our justification is COMPLETE, (fulfilled).

The blessed English language provides a very easy way to understand this, which is in line with what St. Nick said above, and that is: "Justified, is that in Christ it is JUST IF I'D HAD NOT SINNED."
Is this or not in line with this:


Anyway, thanks Brother for your insight. Thank you, thank you and thank you again!

Milt

You have spoken very well here with great insight brother.

Anyone can approach scripture even Athiests with the goal to prove a point by isolating a verse out of it's context and give it some obscure or bizarre meaning as Wright does very often. However in doing so, they all to often make the very writer of that scripture contradict or even refute his own arguments.

Nicholas

[Saint Nicholas]

For those who have not yet heard it, this is a SUPERB lecture on the theology of N.T. Wright. I have posted this link before but if you missed hearing this teaching by the late Dr. John Robbins 6 years ago I strongly recommend listening to the entire message.

http://www.trinitylectures.org/MP3/W...llection13.mp3

That was a good message from Mr. Robbins.

N. T. Wright has in fact written so much and on many issues, that he is the most confused and confusing writer I have ever read.

Attempting to understand Wright is difficult at times, but in my opinion he is eventually leading his followers to a full blown syncretism.

But he is in good company with the Jesuits and their Marxist Gospel. Especially in South America.

I think Milt can add to this statement being he is quite familiar with South American culture and the Marxist rebels in that country.

My main goal was to address Wright's article. Not the whole of his theology, if we can call it that.

This man for sure is in darkness. I hope and pray God would grant him repentence and salvation. God's will be done.

Nicholas

[MCoving]

Great reading! I think some theologians that may of had part of the truth or maybe alll for awhile but then fall away is one they've never been Gods child. But two they let the false church influence their beliefs, they don't rely upon the Holy Spirit in them, the mind of Christ that they have to understand the Truth (besides ultimately just blinded by God well and don't have mind of Christ but if they were and lost for awhile). But too many will concentrate more on theology as in the status or that it makes them a better person, more into religion than knowing the Truth. Instead of challenging themselves, taking Gods Word to try to dispute their thoughts find holes in their thinking, they just believe and speak on what others say. Its real simple yet theologians try to make it complicated.
We are justifiedd by the blood of Christ, he took the penalty for our sins. Christ died for the Sheep alone, and the sheep hear his voice. As God has chosen and adopted His children, those in His family Christ died for. The blood was spilled so wed be white as snow. That has nothing to do with us or our works. Its not for every single person in the world either. Christs death is what justifies us, and God declared us justified in eternity the act of that justification happened in time. Thus you have eternal justification for the Sheep, and amazing Grace that God opens our eyes and finds us when we were lost. All our justification and salvation and conversion from blind to seeing from lost to found is by God , and thus we praise him!
We are white as snow because of Christ, and his perfect righteousness imputed to our account. We ourselves still sin, but our position in Christ is that we are justified by His blood, we are made right so as to spend eternity with God who chose us from the beginning of the world.

If this theologian would take that simple truth and compare to what he says in his writings, he would see his error. But instead God has blinded these men to the truth, confused them with false beliefs, confused thousands of churchianity in the world. And it just continues to get worse... the poison continues to spread to every instiutional church. Its not the building, or every week meeting, its about being there for the true elect, children of God. Its praising God for His Truth doing what you all do here making known the false teachings and truth. Great posts all.