Flowers defends N.T. Wrights Historic Judaism veiw

N.T. Wright argues that Jews during the apostolic era did not believe in law keeping for personal moral justification, thus legalism, but rather saw and understood the Law as simply defining the people of God nationally. It was not obeyed in order to be personally justified but obeyed because it is what people of God do to please God and define themselves as God pleasers. Likewise, he interprets the New Covenant as defining the people of God. According to Wright, those who believe that Paul was combating legalism or justification by works, have a superficial understanding of Apostolic era and the meaning of the law among the Jews.Ultimately justification before God on judgment day, according to Wright, does not make anyone righteous but simply demonstrates who are the real covenant people of God or those who desire to please God.

Of course this is a half truth. Those Jews who were justified by faith without works did obey the covenant in order to please God rather than a means of moral justification. However, the Law was never given as a means for unregenerate to please God but to realize they could never please God by doing such works. So Wright uses a half truth to deny the whole truth of justification by faith without works.

However, Wright is so wrong on so many levels in his so-called deeper understanding of first century Judaism and his view of justification IF scripture (not secular history) is the final authority. I do not base exegesis on secular history but upon Biblical context.

Flowers, capitalizes on this argument by Wright in order to accuse Calvinists for having a superficial understanding of his interpretations of John 6 and Romans 9. He argues that John 6 and Romans 9 are not to be primarily understood on a universal (all in Adam) or individual level, but primarily are about Israel's hardened condition as a nation, and must be understood on a nationalistic level as a covenant people of God.

Flowers makes a blanket accusation that "Calvinists" do not understand Wright just as they don't understand him and then argues that Wright supports his nationalistic interpretation which he claims is based upon proper exegesis.

I have read and heard enough from both Flowers and Wright to understand that neither have a proper exegetical basis for their positions.

If Jesus is a competent authority to base ones opinion about how the Law was viewed by Israel in his day, then Wright is wrong and so is Flowers. There are two instances where Jews came to Christ and specifically asked what they could "do" to inherit eternal life. One was a lawyer and the other was a rich young ruler. These two cases completely repudiate the supposed "historic" view of Judaism concerning the Law as merely identification as the covenant people of God.

If Jesus is a competent authority to base ones opinion about how John 6 should be interpreted, whether with regard to a universal personal individual level or a national level then Flowers is clearly wrong. Jesus did not say "Israel cannot come unto me except the Father draw them"! Jesus did not say "and Israel will I raise up at the last day"! Jesus did not say "Israel hath the father giveth me and all Israel shall come unto me". Jesus did not say "and Israel cometh to me and I will no wise cast out." Indeed,the term "Israel" or "nation" are not even mentioned in John 6.

I don't doubt the sincerity of either Wright or Flowers but I do deny they base their views on proper exegesis and Wright is looking through the window of sacramentalism (as even he defines his position as "Sacramental Theology") and Flowers is looking through the window of Arminianism rather than exercising sound exegesis.

The biggest exegetical error committed by Flowers is that he attempts to take what he defines as the larger context to reinterpret the immediate context (Jn. 6; Rm.9) to fit his view. Although, it is true that the immediate should be interpreted within the larger context of scripture, Flowers has defined that larger context rather than allowed the scriptures to define the larger context. The larger context is in reality all "in Adam" rather than the national context of Israel. Israel is merely a smaller and immediate example of the larger universal context.

 

The key to understanding NT Wright's view of justification lies in first understanding his view of the kingdom. Wright is a Post-millennialist. He believes that Christ came as the promised king and did in fact set up His kingdom - his new creation - that consists of new covenant people. This new kingdom - new creation with Christ ruling over the world is ultimately to join faith and poliltics together thereby overcoming the rulers of this world. His gospel is a social gospel. It is about restoration of this earth under the rule of his new creation people.

He denies any heavenly hope, but rather defines the hope of the gospel as the restoration on earth as a new Eden.

His view of justification is a sacramental theology through works. Therefore, he must deny that the New Testament period defined "justified" or "works" or the "law" in any individualized moral sense but rather these terms had to do with a national and corporate sense with regard as a covenant people or a people defined by the covenant rather than any attempt to keep the covenant for personal justification. Why? Because his means of transforming this present world is through YOUR GOOD works under the rule of Christ. Hence, those who get on board this kingdom agenda to bring state under church thus restoring this world under the rule of Christ will be ultimately justified or identified as the true covenant people of God.

This work of transformation is empowered through a dynamic personal relationship with Christ through baptism, the Eucharist and the church engaging the social and political world.

Instead of interpreting first century Judaism by the New Testament he is interpreting the New Testament by first century secular history. He sees salvation not in personal terms but in creation terms and the ultimate salvation of this earth is through UNION of state and church as the end goal of Christianity in order to form a theocracy. His gospel is a gospel of social renewal through first bringing the state (powers that be) into submission to the church and the way to do it is to model the sermon on the mount to demonstrate the best policy for curing all social evils.

He preaches another gospel and completely reinterprets the scripture within his post-millennial sacramental justification by works theology. Bottom line,it is your good works under the rule of Christ that ultimately transforms the world.

 

I have been listening and viewing lectures by NT Wright all day. I viewed his lecture on the Jesus we never knew. His lecture on what is the gospel. His lecture on what is the kingdom. His lecture the Christians hope is not heaven.

He claims he knows why "western" Christianity does not understand the kingdom, the gospel, justification, or Jesus, and you would expect that if he knows what we believe, why can't he articulate it in clear language in connection with the mental framework of those he is condemning???? Instead, you go away asking 'what did he say"? Isn't a teacher evaluated as "good" or "bad" by his ability to communicate clearly in the language of his audience???? Instead he gives snippets ambiguously explained accompanied by lots of condemnation on those who do not see it his way, and then, tells stories and sells his books by claiming "you will have to read the books" if you want to really grasp what he is saying.

When asked what is the gospel, or how would he share it with a person if he only has about 10 to 15 minutes to do so,he avoids any personal application, defines "gospel" in terms of his new creation rule that eventually transforms society in general. In other words he has no gospel for a sinner. When asked about repentance, he denies it has anything to do with personal guilt or personal sin but claims it is changing direction of the persons life in connection with the new trend of the new creation or social revolution being led under the Lordship of Christ over this world.