Featured NT Wright

I was unaware this was in question.

 

How on earth do you come up with that conclusion…from my comments or from Wright? Perhaps I missed something regarding Wright as I have not read very much of his work. Please point out where he presents salvation in any other way than through Christ. While we are at it, please show me where I suggest salvation in any other way but Christ. I'm at a loss to your conclusions.

 

But that doesn't address my question. (And I would add that your presentation of baptism is probably closer to what the reformers held than we as baptists hold).

 

Can ya help me out with a reference where he says that, please.

Yep...he's Reformed...not Reformed Baptist. He is Anglican. I certainly disagree with Wright on baptism.

 

I apologize for my lack of clarity. What I mean is that I have read Wright's view of Justification but cannot find the view you ascribe to him. Please provide a reference from Wright stating that the Old Covenant provided such a means for salvation. Then we can look at the rest. I have some of Wright's books, but not many. But from what I read, I understand Wright’s idea is Justification in relation to what he refers to as covenant theology - the belief that God called Abraham’s family into covenant with Him and that this covenant runs throughout God’s plan of redemption. Much of the issue is that Wright defines “righteous acts” as “acts in fulfillment of God’s covenant promises” rather than virtuous acts (Justification, 63). Still, I may have simply not run across the same materials to which you allude. Again, please source your statements from Wright and we can continue. It is never a matter of "opinion" when you attribute words or ideas to another person...these need to be sourced (if not in your post...as this is a bit dialogue, certainly upon request).

Thanks, brother.

 

I'm not going through all of those opinions about the NPP just to find out if and where Wright stated that the Old Covenant was intended to save (especially as the books I have of...that is, authored by... Wright appear to indicate otherwise). You made the claim and I would appreciate it you would show me where Wright actually indicated what you attribute to him.

It's simple, Y1. Many do not hold the NPP, myself included. But when you go so far as to state that N.T. Wright believes a salvation apart from Christ found in the Old Covenant then it is incumbent upon you to back up those charges. Providing second hand opinion is not good enough. I ask again, please show me where N.T. Wright actually states what you assert he believes. If your charges are true, then it shouldn't be a difficult task as Wright is very (understatement) detailed about his views...regardless of the topic.

I hope you see my frustration. I've been studying the NPP on both sides - relying mostly on Wright's view (as it seems less problematic than Sanders and Dunn) and Piper's assessments (basically because I like Piper). But your assertions are far from what I have read of Wright (they are foreign to the materials on the NPP authored by Wright that I have read). To take such a stance (basically, denying that N.T. Wright has recognized the gospel message in Pauline texts) demands a reasonable level of proof. All I am asking is that you provide a legitimate source (not the opinions or reviews on the NPP, but at least one reference from N.T. Wright stating the belief you claim he holds). This is essential to being honest in any type of debate or study. It's the difference between various understandings of another's words and bearing false witness.

 

And I am asking that you back up what you are saying by providing a reference to N.T. Wright actually concluding that Israel was made right by the Law. Just saying it over and over again does not validate your point.

 

Still waiting, brother. In the meantime, perhaps this will illustrate my questioning of your "conclusion" based on your "opinion":

The point that Wright makes regarding the way that first century Jews viewed Torah (Old Covenant, the Law), he summarized like this:

“First, God will soon bring the whole world into judgment, at which point some people will be ‘reckoned in the right’, as Abraham and Phinehas were. Second, there are particular things, even in the present time, which will function as signs of that coming verdict. Third, those particular things are naturally enough the things that mark out loyal Israelites from disloyal ones; in other words (remember Mattathias!) who perform these things in the present time can thus be assured that the verdict to be issued in the future, when the age to come is finally launched, can already be known, can be anticipated, in the present. This, I believe, is what a first-century Pharisee would have meant by ‘justification by the works of the law’ (Paul and the Faithfulness of God, 168). These works are not, according to Wright, a means for “Israel to be in the right” but their understanding of a present sign of who will be vindicated in the future (pg. 169). Jews believed that they were God’s covenant people because God chose them…not because they merited God’s favor.

It is not here that I agree or disagree with Wright, although in application I think he misses the mark (in the overall picture he is painting regarding first-century Judaism and works)…but that’s another matter. The problem I have with your statement(s) is that the above quote is not the first of Wright’s that disproves the conclusions you repeatedly make. Yet you have chosen to ignore the fact that Wright’s own words disproves your assessment, you’ve ignored repeated calls to provide evidence of your claims, and you continue to post your “opinion” about what you "think" another person believes.

Again, all I am asking is that you provide a legitimate source (not the opinions or reviews on the NPP, but at least one reference from N.T. Wright stating the belief you claim he holds). This is essential to being honest in any type of debate or study. It's the difference between various understandings of another's words and bearing false witness.

 

I think that this is what I really don’t understand. My criticism of Wright’s NPP has more to do with Judaism being a legalistic means of pleasing God. Wright correctly states that Israel viewed salvation as a matter of God’s election (Israel as God’s covenant people). He is right to say that we often present Judaism as holding a different view (earning salvation) when Scripture itself testifies that this is not the case. But then Wright points out that they viewed works as a sign of a future justification (much like we view works as a sign of saving faith). The problem that I have is that I think perhaps first century Judaism was at heart a legalistic religion (think, for example, of the relationship between works and salvation in some Arminian traditions). Anyway…I say this to let you know that I am not a blind NT Wright follower.

What I do not understand is how you view Wright as defending that Jewish people were made right with God by keeping the Torah. This is foreign to Scripture and foreign to N.T. Wright. What I am requesting is that you show me where NT Wright even hints at such doctrine.

 

How is the viewing the election of Israel as God choosing a nation different from Paul's view (that branches were cut off so non-Israelites could be grafted in)? I don't think you can get much more a nation election view than presented by Paul. I think you are confusing an elected people with individual election (one is not exclusive of the other).

Second, you are confusing Wrights comments on first century thought and actual truth. The comments about The relationship between Torah and a final justification were about Jewish understandings, not that they were actually successful in keeping the Law. How did you miss his discussion about various Jewish sects viewing different aspects of the Law as the "proof"? Which work are you actually reading?

And again, please reference Wright.

 

How is the viewing that God chose Israel different from Paul's view (that branches were cut off so non-Israelites could be grafted in)? I don't think you can get much more a national election view than presented by Paul...and Scripture. I think you are confusing an elected people with individual election (one is not exclusive of the other).

Second, you are confusing Wrights comments on first century thought and actual truth. The comments about The relationship between Torah and a final justification were about Jewish understandings, not that they were actually successful in keeping the Law. How did you miss his discussion about various Jewish sects viewing different aspects of the Law as the "proof" of justification? Which writings of N.T. Wright are you reading?

And again, please reference Wright. You have a tendency to misrepresent what he actually states. I am starting to get the idea that you have absolutely no idea what Wright expresses of the NPP and instead are offering an opinion twice removed. I'm still giving you the benefit of the doubt...but please provide references to back up your conclusions.