Category: N.T. Wright

Posted on

John Piper and the Future of Justification, Part 3

Piper summarizes some of his main concerns with Wright’s theology. Among them, is Wright’s affirmation that the gospel is not about how to get saved (18). Wright affirms that the gospel “refers to the proclamation that Jesus, the crucified and risen Messiah , is the one, true and only Lord of the world” (18). Piper has no problem affirming this definition of the gospel, nevertheless he finds it troublesome that Wright would deny that the gospel is not about how one gets saved. Wright believes that the gospel is a cosmic proclamation of the lordship of Christ over all political systems and earthly authority.

Wright’s proposition that the gospel is about a cosmic proclamation corrects much of the dualistic thinking in the evangelical world. The Lordship of Christ is a comprehensive and authoritative claim over all mankind. At the same time, by refusing to extend this lordship to the question What must I do to be saved seems rather minimalistic. The gospel is both authoritative– bringing earthly rulers under the authority of Messiah and salvific–and it answers the question what must I do to be saved with a definitive call to embrace Messiah as Lord and you shall be saved (I Corinthians 15:1-2).

Posted on

John Piper and the Future of Justification, Part 2

Editor’s Note: I have no intention to criticize Piper or Wright. My knowledge at this point of the entire “justification” controversy is somewhat limited. Hence, I do not intend to be critical, but rather simply to summarize, and when appropriate, add a few remarks along the way. These posts–should I be consistent–are meant to be short and concise.

Piper begins his introduction by summarizing the seriousness of our call to feed the sheep (John 21:17). He writes that the “seriousness of our calling comes from the magnitude of what is at stake. If we do not feed the sheep in our charge with the ‘whole counsel of God,’ their blood is on our hands” (Piper, pg. 14). Speaking of Wright, Piper writes that he is not “under the curse of Galatians 1:8-9, but that his portrayal of the gospel–and of the doctrine of justification in particular–is so disfigured that it becomes difficult to recognize as biblically faithful” (pg. 15). Unlike so many critics of Wright– who condemn him before even reading him– Piper offers praise to a man who has been a strong defender of Christian orthodoxy and who has become an expert in humiliating members of the Jesus Seminar. Nevertheless, Piper’s desire is clear:

I hope that those who consider this book and read N.T. Wright will read him with greater care, deeper understanding and less inclination to find Wright’s retelling of the story of justification compelling. (16)

In the mid-seventies Wright was re-awakened to the theology of St. Paul. He found that the book of Romans did not fit with the book of Galatians if one begins with a Reformational paradigm. Wright concluded that Romans 10:3 speaks of a covenant status which is for Jews only. This understanding led to a complete re-working of the traditional definitions. However the Reformers had understood Paul, they did not account for how Israel’s history was crucial to Pauline theology. Piper seeks to confront Wright’s assertion, but first acknowledges that “we all wear colored glasses” (17) and that if there is ever going to be any substantial interaction it must be on the foundation of Biblical exegesis. Only the Bible is the “final arbiter of truth” (17). Both Wright and Piper come to the table with this presupposition.

Posted on

The Future of Justification and Proper Engagement, Part 1

Editor’s Note: I would like to begin blogging through Piper’s book. I have no intention to be thorough, but merely to offer some thoughts–whether one paragraph or ten.

Pastor John Piper’s book The Future of Justification attempts to answer Bishop N.T. Wright’s profound affect on the Protestant world. Piper’s book is sure to add a new volume of scholarly dialogue. Though I have not yet begun to interact with the substance of the book, the Acknowledgments offer a helpful model for future interaction. On page 10, Piper writes that “more than any other book…this one was critiqued in the process by very serious scholars.” Among those scholars was Wright himself who offered a 11,000-word response to Piper’s first draft. As a result, Piper’s book will be better for this rich interaction. This to me, is a helpful model for proper engagement. Can you imagine what this would do to our churches if certain Presbyterian writers showed the courtesy to send their first drafts to their theological opponents?

Posted on

Wright’s Interview…

Pastor Barach links to Wright’s interview.

As I’ve said before, God is going to fix the whole world. He’s going to put the whole world to rights. But actually, the advance plan for that is to put human beings to rights in advance. And when that happens, which is what happens through the gospel, it isn’t just, Phew! I’m okay now so I’m going to heaven! It’s I am actually being put right, in order that I can be part of that ongoing purpose.In other words, it’s both conversion and call, which as it was for Paul… converted to see that Jesus is the Messiah, which he’d never dreamt of before, called simultaneously ipso facto to be the apostle to the Gentiles. And in the same way, when the gospel reaches an individual, it is so that they can take part in God’s larger kingdom project.

You can listen to the interview here, if you prefer.

Posted on

N.T. Wright vs. Gnostic “Reformed” thinkers…

Bishop Wright’s lecture on God and Politics are worth quoting. Lee Irons–who strongly opposes Wright’s view of the Kingdom–posted these quotes on his blog.

Wright’s lecture on God and Politics
Though, I find myself in constant disagreement with Wright’s perplexing view of governmental intervention in civil affairs, overwhelming taxation–which resembles Jim Wallis’ leftist socialistic approach–nevertheless, I too share Wright’s concerns with America’s imperialistic enterprise.

Some Reformed interpreters like to postulate that Psalm 2 is only an eschatological promise never to be seen or experienced by God’s people. What hope does the Psalmist provide then for God’s people? Wright corrects this absurd claim and restores the unmistakable Biblical claim that the earth is the Lord’s. As a result, Psalm 2 provides a response to the gnostic tendency of some reformed scholars who are more and more imitating their dispensational brothers in their “escapist” theology.

Jesus did indeed launch God’s saving sovereignty on earth as in heaven, but this couldn’t be accomplished without his death and resurrection. In other words, the problem for which God’s kingdom project was and is the answer was deeper than could be addressed by a social program alone. Equally too, yes, Jesus did die for our sins, but his whole agenda of dealing with sin and its effects and consequences was never about rescuing individual souls from the world but about saving humans so that they could become part of his project of saving the world.

Jesus was hailed as already Lord of heaven and earth, and in particular as the one through whom the Creator God will restore and unite all things. And this gives a sharp focus to the present task of earthly rulers … Now, since Jesus’ death and resurrection … they are to look forward … to the ultimate eschaton. One day God will right all wrongs through Jesus, and earthly rulers – whether or not they acknowledge this Jesus and his coming kingdom – in fact are entrusted with the task of anticipating in a measure that final judgment and final mercy … They are to enact in a measure, in advance, the time when God will make all things new and will once again declare that it’s very good.

Along with this vision of God working through earthly rulers there goes a vocation to the church to be the people through whom the rulers are to be reminded of their task and called to account … Part of the way in which the church will do this is by getting on with and setting forward those works of justice and mercy, of beauty and relationship, which the rulers know in their bones ought to be flourishing but which they seem powerless to bring about … Thus, the church in its biblical commitment to doing ‘God in public’ is called to learn how to collaborate without compromise (hence the importance of the common good theory) and to critique without dualism … The aim of this lecture, then, is to encourage readings of the Bible which by highlighting the public-ness of God and the gospel set forward such reforms as will enable the church to play its part in holding the powers to account and thus advancing God’s restorative justice.

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Posted on

The Flesh…

Bishop Wright has some thoughtful comments in his: Paul for Everyone: Romans: Chapters 1-8. According to N.T. Wright, understanding what Paul’s definition of “flesh” is in Romans will help settle Paul’s distinction between “fleshly” and “spiritual.” He writes:

But what do ‘fleshly’ and ’spiritual’ mean? The first term, particularly, is so problematical that it would be nice (as I have tried to do with some other technical language) to avoid it altogether, but I have found that doing so produces even worse tangles. Better to learn, once and for all, that when Paul uses the word ‘flesh’ and other similar words he does not intend us simply to think of the ‘physical’ world, in our normal sense, as opposed to the ‘non-physical’. He has other language for that.

The word we translate, here and elsewhere, as ‘flesh’ refers to people or things who share the corruptibility and mortality of the world, and, often enough and certainly here, the rebellion of the world. ‘Flesh’ is a negative term. For Paul as a Jew the created order, the physical world, was good in itself. Only its wrong use, and its corruption and defacing, are bad. ‘Flesh’ highlights that wrong use, that corruption and decay. (p.140-41)

This is a helpful definition. What N.T. Wright has done is correct improper dichotomies in the text that are simply not found, but rather, take its roots in Platonic dualism. This is, furthermore, a stern rebuke of those who would like to use concepts such as “flesh” to identify everything that belongs to this world. In this worldview, the flesh can never be redeemed and the world is merely a necessary evil. The text simply will not allow these faulty ideas to occur. It has been the purpose of God to redeem the flesh and this world, hence, it is the corruption and defacing of the “flesh” that we as baptized Christians must avoid.

Posted on

PCA Report on the FV/NPP Adopted in the General Assembly

I would like to offer a few comments in light of the decision of the PCA General Assembly.

First, as Pastor Wilson has mentioned, and I concur, we are not to speak out of anger because of this decision. Nevertheless, I confess that there was a certain level of discouragement after I heard of the news.

Secondly, for those of us who are members of the PCA and at the same time agreeing with much that is said in the Federal Vision literature, let us not lose heart. Sometimes decisions such as these serve to awaken us to the real need for careful interaction with our neighbors who find themselves disagreeing with our position.

Thirdly, I have heard from one who attended that the entire process was done very respectfully without any name-calling.

Fourthly, there appeared to have been at least 15-20%1 in disagreement with the decision. This says that there were many who found the decision to be irrational and unfair. Among those were people who disagreed with the general direction of the NPP/FV, but sensed that something less than proper was going on.

Fifthly, in the words of an attendant: “There were some who wanted to spend another year looking at the topic before bringing it to the General Assembly.” Among the dissenting party one pastor mentioned a proposal to postpone the report requiring at least three changes:

1) The need to add at least two voices to the report that find some value in the Federal Vision.2

2) Instead of comparing it only to the Confession, the report should present an exposition of the passages related to the various debates so that the Bible would be the final arbiter in all things.

3) The Assembly should provide tools so that pastors could go back to their congregations and explain the issues involved in the various debates.

In my humble opinion, the GA would have done well to listen to these brothers.

Finally, this decision is said to not be binding on the entire assembly. It is merely a recommendation of the Assembly. While this is true, when a recommendation receives approval from the majority of members in the Assembly it is liable to become an authoritative document in future disputations in these matters. With so many PCA ministers unaware of the issues around the FV/NPP they will now go back to their congregations and perhaps misrepresent the issues or assume that it is a done deal. As some are already aware, if you are a candidate for a pastoral position in some presbyteries and express sympathy towards FV/NPP, you will not have your call confirmed. I do trust our TE’s and RE’s, but I also realize that for some people when the assembly speaks, it has done more than recommend, but settled the issue. I cannot but be pessimistic about this entire endeavor. My prayer is that my brothers in the faith (particularly Pastor Steve Wilkins) remain in PCA as long as possible and continue to defend these important truths of covenant living and covenant worship.3 Though some may feel the immediate urge to leave the PCA for the CREC or another denomination, I urge you to stay in the PCA and fight the good fight until the very end.

Links for further information:

The Mp3 file with the discussion is found here.

Reformed News

Leithart link

Footnotes

  1. Perhaps someone may clarify the numbers [↩ back]
  2. This was mentioned since all of those chosen to study the issue had either in print or some way expressed negative sentiments towards the Federal Vision and those who showed sympathy towards N.T. Wright and others [↩ back]
  3. The General impression is that “justification” was the central area of discussion. It would have been much wiser to separate the Federal Vision and the New Perspective in order to avoid confusion. [↩ back]
Posted on

Wright on Romans

I have thoroughly enjoyed Wright’s commentary on Romans. However, at times I cannot but help to see a conspicuous denial of the Reformed doctrine of predestination. At least, it appears that because of his Israel motif he cannot see the clear implications of Romans 9. Leithart seems to summarize at least in part my sentiments towards Wright’s comments on Romans 9.

Wright points out that the storyline Paul is reviewing in Romans 9 is not a general storyline for any old nation or race, nor the history of individuals, but specifically the story of Israel. Whatever God does with other nations, Paul is showing that God’s plan with Israel always involved a division within the family of Israel.

Wright, however, is protesting too much, attempting to avoid as he does elsewhere in his exposition the predestinarian implications of Romans 9. It is true that Paul is dealing with a specific history here, but as Wright himself has said elsewhere, that history is the history of the new humanity that Yahweh was beginning with Abraham. Just as Jesus’ story is the story of humanity as well as the story of Israel (He is Last Adam and not merely new Israel), so the history of Israel is a microcosm of God’s dealings with humanity as a whole. Specifically, just as it was always God’s purpose to make a division within the nation of Israel, so it was always God’s purpose to make a division within humanity. So, even though (if?) Paul concentrates on Israel alone here, we can draw more general inferences from about God’s dealings with humanity.

Posted on

Bishop Wright on understanding the New Testament

Question: What few books would you recommend as a foundation for understanding the NT?

The foundation for understanding the NT is at one level prayer, humility, and openness to what the living God may be saying in Jesus Christ and the power of the Holy Spirit. At another level, very closely integrated with this first one through the fact of the incarnation, the foundation is of course the knowledge of the history, culture and language of the time, i.e. NT Greek, a knowledge of the Jewish world of late antiquity, and the wider Greco-Roman context. This doesn’t mean you have to be an ancient historian before you can understand the NT, but it is vital that those who are teaching in the church base their readings on real historical understanding rather than anachronistic assumptions.

I wrote my book The New Testament and the People of God precisely in order to address this need among my own students. This was what I wanted them to know before they began; I found in tutorials and seminars I was constantly having to go through these basics rather than the topic set because otherwise they were making the wrong assumptions about what words and ideas meant, etc.
I actually still find that the big reference books, especially The Oxford History of the Christian Church and The Oxford Classical Dictionary, are invaluable on an almost daily basis. The basic introduction by Achtemeier, Green and Thompson is excellent for those starting out. The Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible is very good. But actually I would urge anyone who wants to get into the NT seriously to learn as much of it by heart as they can. If in Greek so much the better. Talk whole chapters and books on to cassette tape and play them in the car, when doing housework, etc etc. There is no substitute for a ready, easy familiarity with the text itself. Apart from anything else, learning whole passages rescues you from the out-of-context readings that so bedevil an early attempt to understand scripture.

Posted on

Heaven our ultimate destiny? Part 2

Is it any surprise that our understanding of life is completely devoid of any kingdom orientation? In a real sense modern evangelicals (some even in our esteemed Reformed camp) would much desire to be “raptizo” than to live in this present world. As long as we continue with the refrain: “This world is not my home and I am just passing through…” we will simply as it were “pass through” life in the great tradition of monasticism with a blend of Mennonite pietism. Granted, the hymn writers were greatly inspired by the wonders of heaven; after all “heaven is a wonderful place full of glory and grace,” and all the benefits thereof. Nevertheless, it is far from the eschatological promise God intends for his people.

There is no finality in heaven as there is no finality on earth. The ultimate destiny of God’s people is therefore a combination of the grandness of earth and the glories of heaven…it is The New Heavens and The New Earth, and might I add, a special flavor added to the New Earth part. The creation of the world was not a temporary abode for humanity; nothing God creates serves as temporary housing or storage. Much of what we are and where we live will ultimately be purified and refined, bur never abolished and re-created; that is un-Christian. Notice that even Paul’s language of “new creation (II Corinthians 5:17)” does not mean abolishment or destruction. There is something very unique about our present bodies and our present world. It is created with a sense of connectedness; a sense of un-separateness.

In simple words, heaven is not our ultimate destiny nor should we desire it to be. As N.T. Wright has commented: courtship is good, but it would be terrible if it lasted forever! Completeness and wholeness is our desire and all things being equal (contrary to some)  one day this will be perfectly manifested.