I can’t be bothered reading the massive thread on NT Wright and justification at this point in time. However, I have read a little primer by NT Wright and his thoughts on justification found here.

My question is, if NT Wright were right, what implication would that have on the Sydney Diocese? Where would there be implications? I can’t think of any (cos I’m still trying to grasp what he is actually saying) so I would like to know what others think.  What would change for me as a current reformed evangelical believer in regard to the way I go about living out a life devoted to Christ?

Hope this isn’t a dead horse and wasn’t covered in the other massive thread.

Cheers

Geoff

Geoff Chambers - 22 October 2007 02:15 PM

My question is, if NT Wright were right, what implication would that have on the Sydney Diocese?

Very little, except that our understanding of justification might be a little more biblical.

... and waits for Gordon to arrive [to annunciate his concerns re NTW’s teachings] :).

Angus Johnson - 22 October 2007 02:26 PM

... and waits for Gordon to arrive frothing at the mouth :).

Ahh good. A man with good biblical knowledge who can tell me pitifalls and direct me where to run for cover to the shelter of “justification by faith”.

.

Angus Johnson - 22 October 2007 02:32 PM

.

Is that “full stop” because you are stating that that is what all Reformers do instead of directly addressing the issue? Cos that’s what I was kinda hinting at.

Geoff Chambers - 22 October 2007 02:29 PM

and direct me where to run for cover to the shelter of “justification by faith”.

Just to clarify, NTW still firmly supports the doctrine of “justification by faith”.

Geoff Chambers - 22 October 2007 02:47 PM

Is that “full stop” because you ...

No, it was an edit to clarify something that was no longer needed after your initial edit :) And then I added some other stuff which I also deleted (which was unhelpful on further consideration).

Geoff Chambers - 22 October 2007 02:15 PM

I can’t be bothered reading the massive thread on NT Wright and justification at this point in time.

And fair enough too. This basically tells you why NT Wright is never going to have a serious immediate impact on the average punter. He, like that thread, is just too complex, prolix and obfuscatory for anyone whose academic credentials don’t depend on it to be too bothered with. His main appeal is to the intellectual wine and cheeserati who like to dabble with new ideas (present company excepted, naturally).

But the mighty Lionel Windsor, the thongs of whose brain I am not worthy to untie, has done a pretty good job of summarising one of the key issues here, and this paper by Lig Duncan is worth a read.

This basically tells you why NT Wright is never going to have a serious immediate impact on the average punter.

That’s right.

The problem is that this stuff tends to filter down through academia, out into pastor land, and then into the congregation. I suspect we’ll be fighting this one for another generation.

Craig Schwarze - 22 October 2007 08:10 PM

That’s right.

The problem is that this stuff tends to filter down through academia, out into pastor land, and then into the congregation. I suspect we’ll be fighting this one for another generation.

But what are it’s biggest implications for us? Peter Jensen I’ve heard has said it’s going to be one of our biggest challenges. If it does filter down into the congregation how will people worship Christ differently?

Geoff, for mine one of the biggest implications for Sydney Diocese and as Sydney Anglicans (the group) is that we are wrong to be Protestants. Whatever else NTW says, he says we are wrong to follow Luther and Calvin’s understanding of justification, and wrong to be hasty in condemning Roman Catholic views.

If Luther is right, ‘justification’ as he defined it (and as the traditional Anglican formularies—prayer book, homilies and articles have accepted) is the doctrine by which the church stands or falls. By redefining justification, NTW contributes to the downfall of many churches.

So we’re talking about a fairly radical restructure of our thinking here. More important, however, are the individual implications of the confusion that Wright engenders. Which is why I’d just as soon encourage individual Christians to stay out of this conceptual bog unless, like the late Steve Irwin, they want to go in and play with a few stingrays for the sake of the cameras.

Gordon Cheng - 23 October 2007 08:21 AM

If Luther is right, ‘justification’ as he defined it (and as the traditional Anglican formularies—prayer book, homilies and articles have accepted) is the doctrine by which the church stands or falls. By redefining justification, NTW contributes to the downfall of many churches.

Of course I can’t speak for NTW, but I’d be confident that what Gordon has said here is the sort of Protestant thinking with which he (NTW) takes issue. The ‘Gospel’ for some appears to have changed focus from the Good News about Jesus, his incarnation, death and resurrection to the Good News about the doctrine of Justification by Faith. Anyhow, NTW firmly endorses and upholds the doctrine of Justification by Faith and (contrary to repeated accusations to the contrary) denies “works” having any contribution to our justification. However, what many seem to have trouble with is NTW’s biblical* claim that our salvation is still based on the evidence that our faith is genuine.

*Rom 2:6-8; 2 Cor 5:10

Angus Johnson - 23 October 2007 08:56 AM

However, what many seem to have trouble with is NTW’s (biblical) claim that our salvation is still based on the evidence that our faith is genuine.

So is this what all the hubris is about? Our status as believers is demonstrated by our works?

Anyhow, NTW firmly endorses and upholds the doctrine of Justification by Faith

The problem is that he has redefined the words “Justification” and “Faith”. The words are the same as Luther used, but the meaning is different.

Craig Schwarze - 23 October 2007 09:00 AM

Anyhow, NTW firmly endorses and upholds the doctrine of Justification by Faith

The problem is that he has redefined the words “Justification” and “Faith”. The words are the same as Luther used, but the meaning is different.

I understood what he was saying about justification, that is wasn;t about a right relationhip with God, but was more God’s declaration of our status or something?

In a sentence, can anyone define what Luther and Wright define faith to be?

Geoff, I’m struggling to nail this down as much as you. From what I understand, Wright believes that our faith is, of itself, a meritorious act of obediance. Or somethin’ like that.

Perhaps one of the Wright fans will clear it up?

Geoff Chambers - 23 October 2007 09:00 AM

So is this what all the hubris is about? Our status as believers is demonstrated by our works?

NO! Our status as believers is based solely on our continuing faith. However, our salvation (ie at final judgement) will still depend on the evidence that our faith was genuine (ie that the Holy Spirit was truly indwelling and transforming).

Craig Schwarze - 23 October 2007 09:06 AM

From what I understand, Wright believes that our faith is, of itself, a meritorious act of obediance. Or somethin’ like that.

NO. Wright has always upheld that our faith is purely dependant on God’s grace. He firmly denies Semi-Pelagianism.