This is a really good link to a transcribed interview with John Piper about the damages Wright’s view could cause to the church. It’s the 6th part of a 7 part interview that talks about his new book The Future of Justification which is a response to NT Wright.

Piper says in the interview:

Therefore, the very thing that N.T. Wright and others are wanting to accomplish, namely an engaged, bold, loving, sacrificial, mission-oriented church will cease to be that, just like the mainline churches have ceased to be dynamic forces in the world, because they threw away the essence of certain crucial doctrines. You don’t see it now, because N.T. Wright himself is such a good embodiment of engagement, but I’m saying that some of the things he says have the trajectory that if they’re followed out, are going to in fact undermine the very thing he wants to accomplish, namely, a sacrificially loving church.

Thanks to Mark S for the link.

Jason Hobba - 25 October 2007 10:09 PM

Can you find a place in the NT where future justification for the Christian is on the basis of personal holiness?

Well, of the references I gave in my previous post I’d particularly highlight

[quote author="John 5:28-29"]
5:28 Do not be astonished at this; for the hour is coming when all who are in their graves will hear his voice 5:29 and will come out—those who have done good, to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil, to the resurrection of condemnation.

[quote author="Romans 2:6-10"]
2:6 For he will repay according to each one’s deeds: 2:7 to those who by patiently doing good seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life; 2:8 while for those who are self-seeking and who obey not the truth but wickedness, there will be wrath and fury. 2:9 There will be anguish and distress for everyone who does evil, the Jew first and also the Greek, 2:10 but glory and honor and peace for everyone who does good, the Jew first and also the Greek.

[quote author="1 Peter 1:17"]
1:17 If you invoke as Father the one who judges all people impartially according to their deeds, live in reverent fear during the time of your exile.

I see no reason to think that these are all “without Jesus” scenarios - to me it seems far more logical to assume that those who “by patiently doing good seek for glory and honor and immortality” are doing so as part of their trust in King Jesus, which is, of course, itself a gracious gift of God working through his Spirit.

(NB I’m really quite ignorant re NTW himself - I’ve read very little of his work, and got completely lost on the other mega-thread - and by defending the view you quoted above I’m not saying I necessarily agree with him everywhere).

Sorry for double-posting, but I’ve just read the Piper interview and noticed the following:
[quote author="John Piper"]
I want to say it as clear as I can: the function of those necessary good works of love is not to move God to be totally for me. His being totally for me is what moves me to do those works. If we reverse that, we undermine the very power by which we can do the works. And I fear that’s what’s happening. Not intentionally—sometimes just because the language leans so hard in that direction.

Can anybody who’s ready more Wright than me (which wouldn’t be at all hard) supply a Wright quote that implies that good works “move God to be totally for us”?

Tom Barrett - 27 October 2007 03:35 PM

Can anybody who’s ready more Wright than me (which wouldn’t be at all hard) supply a Wright quote that implies that good works “move God to be totally for us”?

Hi Tom. This is a complete misunderstanding of Wright. He’s never said or suggested that works curry favour with God. He’s only ever affirmed that works are simply the evidence of genuine faithfulness on which we will be judged.

HI all,

Thanks for those who have posted on this discussion - it has been interesting reading it… and fairly good preparation for my NT3 exam coming up :)

I was reading the 2nd part of an article that Gordon linked to (great resource- thanks Gordo!) and read this

We may access Wright’s view of justification by examining Romans 2:13 in Paul’s argument of that letter. Wright maintains that Paul is not making a hypothetical point in Romans 2:13, but that he is setting forth the biblical way of justification when he says, “For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified.” He we find the New Perspective arriving at its unavoidable destination, in a doctrine of justification that depends on our legal achievement. (emphasis mine)

I was wondering if anyone has Wright’s commentary on Romans handy and if so if they could check out what he has to say about this verse? The article seems to be well-argued, but has very little in the way of direct quotes from Wright- so would like to check out what he has to say for himself on that verse.

Any takers?

Hi Dannii, I realise I am not kosha to you (or other elite people) for past reasons, about certain subjects, but have you read:-Justification: The Biblical Basis and its Relevance for Contemporary Evangelicalism

love and best wishes, Ken

Not me!

Hi Dannii, I realise I am not kosha to you (or other elite people) for past reasons, about certain subjects,

Wow Ken. That’s a bit harsh isn’t it? I’m certainly not an ‘elite person’, nor have ever claimed to be. And I certainly don’t think you are not ‘kosha’. We’ve had our disagreements on here in the past (as most forum posters do at some stage or another) but I don’t think that is any reason to assume I would discount anything you had to say.

In answer to your question - no I haven’t read the book, (though I think I may have read some excerpts from it at some stage. I will keep my eye out for it (after exams are over). Thanks

Thanks Dannii. It is just that this topic seems to have attracted the theological buffs, and when I posted the link, which is spot on the topic, and written by NTW himself, my posting seemed to have been ignored.

I was a little miffed. Forgive me.

Dani Treweek - 27 October 2007 09:20 PM

HI all,

Thanks for those who have posted on this discussion - it has been interesting reading it… and fairly good preparation for my NT3 exam coming up :)

I was reading the 2nd part of an article that Gordon linked to (great resource- thanks Gordo!) and read this

We may access Wright’s view of justification by examining Romans 2:13 in Paul’s argument of that letter. Wright maintains that Paul is not making a hypothetical point in Romans 2:13, but that he is setting forth the biblical way of justification when he says, “For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified.” He we find the New Perspective arriving at its unavoidable destination, in a doctrine of justification that depends on our legal achievement. (emphasis mine)

I was wondering if anyone has Wright’s commentary on Romans handy and if so if they could check out what he has to say about this verse? The article seems to be well-argued, but has very little in the way of direct quotes from Wright- so would like to check out what he has to say for himself on that verse.

Any takers?

Hello Dani. I do not know whether Wright’s particular interpretation of Romans 2:13, etc squares with justification by faith alone. But it is interesting to note that the traditional doctrine of justification by faith alone as laid out in the Apology of Augsburg, etc actually interprets Rom 2:3-13 as speaking of the living, fruitful faith which alone justifies--in distinction to the state of having a dead or non-existent faith which does not bring forth the fruit of obedience to God’s Law. [i.e. In regards to Rom 2:13, etc--Those who are justified through the merits of Christ are those who have a living faith which obeys God’s Law (though this obedience is itself imperfect and “non-meritorious") .]

Apology of Augsburg:

...Rom. 2, 13: The doers of the Law shall be justified. As, therefore, these words: The doers of the Law shall be justified, contain nothing contrary to our doctrine, so, too, we believe concerning the words of James: By works a man is justified, and not by faith alone, because men having faith and good works are certainly pronounced righteous. For, as we have said, the good works of saints are righteous, and please on account of faith. For James commends only such works as faith produces, as he testifies when he says of Abraham, 2, 22: Faith wrought with his works. In this sense it is said: The doers of the Law are justified {Rom 2:13}, i.e., they are pronounced righteous who from the heart believe God, and afterwards have good fruits, which please Him on account of faith, and, accordingly, are the fulfilment of the Law.
http://www.bookofconcord.org/augsburgdefense/5_love.html

And the view that those who are justified are those who have a living faith which does not simply hear, but also obeys the Law is also the teaching of the traditional doctrine of justification as articulated in the Anglican Homilies (I’ll discuss this in the next post--which is essentially a copy and paste of an earlier post on this matter).

God Bless,
William Scott

[From an earlier post on the Rom 2:3-13 passage as it relates to justification by faith alone.]

Rom 2:6 [God] Who will render to every man according to his deeds:
7 To them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, eternal life:

The answer is that this passage and the many other similar passages in Scripture fit perfectly with the Traditional doctrine of justification by faith alone affirmed in the Anglican and Lutheran formularies. The Anglican formularies teach that a living, saving faith is one in which there is a patient continuance in well doing [good works] and seeking for glory and honor and immortality (and for those Elect Vessels of mercy, Who by God’s grace alone persevere to the end, the ultimate goal of “eternal life” is received as Paul states here). But to further clarify the traditional doctrine of justification by faith alone here are some (rather long) quotes from the Anglican Formularies:

Anglican Homily on Good Works:

…men that are very men indeed first have life and after are nourished, so must our faith in Christ go before, and after be nourished with good works. And life may be without nourishment, but nourishment cannot be without life. A man must of necessity be nourished by good works, but first he must have faith. He that does good deeds, yet without faith he has no life. I can show a man that by faith without works lived and came to heaven, but without faith, never man had life. The thief that was hanged when Christ suffered did believe only, and the most merciful God justified him. And because no man shall say again that he lacked time to do good works, for else he would have done them, truth it is, and I will not contend therein, but this I will surely affirm, that only faith saved him. If he had lived and not regarded faith and the works thereof, he should have lost his salvation again.

...Christ declared that the laws of God are the very way that leads to everlasting life, and not the traditions and laws of men. So that this is to be taken for a most true lesson taught by Christ’s own mouth, that the works of the moral commandments of God are the very true works of faith which lead to the blessed life to come. But the blindness and malice of man, even from the beginning, has ever been ready to fall from God’s commandments.

And travailing continually, (during this life) thus in keeping the commandments of God (wherein stands the pure, principal, and right honor of God, and which wrought in faith, God has ordained to be the right trade and path way unto heaven) you shall not fail, as Christ has promised, to come to that blessed and everlasting life, where you shall live in glory and joy with God for ever, to whom be praise, honor and empire, for ever and ever. Amen.
http://www.geocities.com/curtis_caldwell/bk1hom05_mod.htm

From the Exposition of the Articles’ teaching on justification in the Homily on justification (see 11th Article) :

Our office is not to pass the time of this present life unfruitfully and idly after we are baptized or justified, not caring how few good works we do to the glory of God and profit of our neighbors. Much less is it our office, after that we be once made Christ’s members, to live contrary to the same, making our selves members of the devil, walking after his incitements, and after the suggestions of the world and the flesh, whereby we know that we do serve the world and the devil, and not God.
http://www.geocities.com/curtis_caldwell/bk1hom03_mod.htm

And the traditional doctrine on justification by faith alone makes clear that those who cease from patient continuance in good works have ceased from a living faith, and therefore the salvation which they had through their spiritual union with Christ from faith (and the imputing of His righteousnes as their own by this union) also ceases.

Of course, no one believes in the first place (or perseveres therein) except by the grace of God alone--and as God justly allows non-believers to resist His grace, so He justly allows some (ie Vessels of Wrath) who have trusted in Christ for a time to ultimately resist and drive out the Spirit of grace, in the sinfulness of their flesh, after they have been saved by faith* (this is the sober, Scriptural doctrine of falling from Salvation which is affirmed in the Anglican formularies (as well as by Luther himself), and which God’s Word also warns of (i.e. not as a pretend danger--but as a real danger that does occur).

And although good works are the only way of a living, saving faith (as the Anglican formularies note) yet they are filthy rags in the Sight of God’s Awesome Holiness, because they are all tainted by the sinfulness of our flesh. And thus it is only by Christ’s righteousness poured on us in His righteous Blood that we stand justified before the Father (So, again, our good works, although they are the “life” of faith as the Epistle of James notes, yet they can never be trusted on for any justification before God).

God Bless,
William Scott

Hi WIlliam

Thanks for your continued valuable input from the Anglican past which many, especially I, have undervalued.  It seemed that there was no conflict between the Wright view expressed at the beginning of this thread and these “traditional” approaches.  But then at the end of your post you said

William Scott - 28 October 2007 12:25 PM

[And although good works are the only way of a living, saving faith (as the Anglican formularies note) yet they are filthy rags in the Sight of God’s Awesome Holiness, because they are all tainted by the sinfulness of our flesh. And thus it is only by Christ’s righteousness poured on us in His righteous Blood that we stand justified before the Father (So, again, our good works, although they are the “life” of faith as the Epistle of James notes, yet they can never be trusted on for any justification before God).

and herein lies the point of contention, I think (so thanks for bringing us to the crux of the matter!) - how are the the good works which are essential to a real faith judged at the end of the age?  Is our final justification in line with the life lived, or despite it?  It seems that you’re saying that our good works aren’t really good, but this seems nonsensical to me - if they’re not good enough to please our heavenly Father then surely we shouldn’t call them good at all?  Will God never actually say to us “well done, good and faithful servant”?

I say all this conscious of the difference between my life and God’s holiness, but wanting to listen to scripture more than my own feelings.

Do you have any source documents for the idea that our works of faith will be judged as filthy rags in the sight of God’s awesome holiness?

Cheers
Tom

Dani,

If you’re looking for a good summary of NTW’s view of justification in his own words check here.

There is someone else’s summary of it, which is helpful but not as accurate as it might be on the forensic nature of justification in NTW here.

Dani Treweek - 27 October 2007 09:20 PM

HI all,

Thanks for those who have posted on this discussion - it has been interesting reading it… and fairly good preparation for my NT3 exam coming up :)
...

I was wondering if anyone has Wright’s commentary on Romans handy and if so if they could check out what he has to say about this verse? The article seems to be well-argued, but has very little in the way of direct quotes from Wright- so would like to check out what he has to say for himself on that verse.

Any takers?

NTW also has a nice little 5 page summary of what he thinks about Romans 1-11 in Paul: Fresh Perspectives.

Enjoy the exam prep.

Hello Tom (and please let me know if I have not properly answered your question),

All the Reformation statements noted that none of our good works can stand the severity of God’s judgment (and thus even in our good works God must show mercy towards us through the Blood and Merits of Christ)--in this they affirmed the Historic faith of the Church on the imperfect, and tainted nature of even our best works (and St. Bernard long before the Reformation, for example, stated specifically that even our good works are as filthy rags before our Holy God).

This is expressed in Scripture in a number of ways--but I’ll focus on just one of the senses in which this is seen from Scripture. Namely the nature of the Law--that we must love God perfectly with our whole being (heart, mind, and soul) at every moment--and we must never love ourselves more than we love our neighbor. This is an awesome standard of perfection which no one except Christ ever met.

And because God is perfectly Holy--even the slightest stain of sin makes even our best works foul and unacceptable before God according to their own true merit or deserving.

A couple of quotations--St. Bernard of Clairvaux says:

‘What can all our righteousness be before God? Shall it not, according to the prophet, be viewed as “a filthy rag;” and if it is strictly judged, shall not all our righteousness turn out to be mere unrighteousness and deficiency? What, then, shall it be concerning our sins, when not even our righteousness can answer for itself? Wherefore, exclaiming vehemently with the Prophet, “Enter not into judgment with Thy servant, O Lord!” let us flee, with all humility, to Mercy, which alone can save our souls. . . . Whosoever, feeling compunction for his sins, hungers and thirsts after righteousness, let him believe in Thee, who “justifiest the ungodly;” and thus, being justified by faith alone, he shall have peace with God. . . . Thy Passion is the last refuge, the alone remedy. When wisdom fails, when righteousness is insufficient, when the merits of holiness succumb, it succours us. For who, either from his own wisdom, or from his own righteousness, or from his own holiness, shall presume on a sufficiency for salvation?’ ‘Oh, he alone is truly blessed to whom the Lord imputes not sin, for there is no one who has not sin. “All have sinned, and come short of the glory of God.”

And the Anglican Homily on the Misery of Mankind states likewise:

“Let us all confess with mouth and heart that we are full of imperfections. Let us know our own works, of what imperfection they are, and then we shall not stand foolishly and arrogantly in our own conceits, nor challenge any part of justification by our merits or works. For truly there are imperfections in our best works. We do not love God so much as we are bound to do, with all our heart, mind, and power. We do not fear God so much as we ought to do. We do not pray to God, but with great and many imperfections. We give, forgive, believe, live, and hope imperfectly. We speak, think, and do imperfectly. We fight against the devil, the world, and the flesh imperfectly. Let us therefore not be ashamed to confess plainly our state of imperfection. Yes, let us not be ashamed to confess imperfection, even in all our best works.In ourselves therefore may we not glory, which (of our selves) are nothing but sinful.”

“Neither may we rejoice in any works that we do which all be so imperfect and impure that they are not able to stand before the righteous judgment seat of God. As the holy prophet David said, “Enter not into judgment with thy servant (Oh Lord), for no man that lives shall be found righteous in your sight” (Psalms 143:2). To God therefore must we flee, or else shall we never find peace, rest and quietness of conscience in our hearts. For he is the Father of mercies, and God of all consolation (2 Corinthians 1:3).”
http://www.geocities.com/curtis_caldwell/bk1hom02_mod.htm

But as all the Reformation statements (and the Historic Church) noted--the good works are of faith are accepted by God and pleasing in His Sight, on account of Christ and His Sacrifice rather than according to their true deserving--as Article 12 on Good Works states:

Albeit that good works, which are the fruits of faith and follow after justification, cannot put away our sins and endure the severity of God’s judgement, yet are they pleasing and acceptable to God in Christ…

Again--affirming that our good works of faith, though imperfect and undeserving and unable to endure God’s strict judgement in themselves--yet they are accepted and pleasing to God on account of Christ.

And as for the “final prize” or “final reward” of our faith, good works, and faithfulness therein (i.e. of “finishing the race") at the Final Judgment--It is not given according to the true deserving or merit of any thing we have done but solely according to the Free Promise in Christ Jesus (Who has “earned” Salvation on our behalf)--as Luther wisely said regarding the completely unmerited nature of the “reward” of good works:

CCCXVII.
Desert is a work nowhere to be found, for Christ gives a reward by reason of the promise. If the prince elector should say to me: Come to the court, and I will give thee one hundred florins, I perform a work in going to the court, yet I receive not the gift by reason of my work in going thither, but by reason of the promise the prince made me.

So at the Final Judgement Christ both recongizes and rewards our good works of faith--according to Mercy (by His Blood and Merits) and not according to the Strict Justice they deserve.

God Bless,
William Scott

Thanks William, I think that does answer my question.

I find St Bernard’s use of the phrase “filthy rags” unhelpful since it’s lifted from Isaiah 64:6 which is in the context of old-covenant, non-justified, non-Spirit-led Israel.  But his point, that even in this new covenant our obedience is imperfect and therefore worthless apart from God’s grace in Christ, makes complete sense.

Taking this back to the Wright material and Jason’s summary to which I was originally responding, I don’t see anything there suggesting that Wright thinks final justification is on the basis of “strict justice” - our works, good and bad, being totalled up to arrive at a final balance of positive or negative merit.  Rather I think his point is that, as you’ve put it, our “good works of faith, though imperfect and undeserving and unable to endure God’s strict judgement in themselves [...] are accepted and pleasing to God on account of Christ” and that a life that is not characterised by this (imperfect) obedience is a life that has not been lived by faith in the Lord Jesus.  In other words, just because he says our obedience matters in the last judgement doesn’t mean he thinks final salvation is by merit.

Looking at the previous posts, this is pretty much what Angus has said:
[quote author="Angus Johnson"]
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).

But again, if someone can cite original material showing that Wright goes beyond this, to some sort of merit-based system, I’m ready to change my judgement.

On the principle that something has to be unbiblical to be damaging to the church, I’m not yet seeing yet how Wright’s views can be damaging.  Some seem to be suggesting that his “redefinition” of the word justification is unhelpful, but surely what he’s actually doing is putting forward another view as to what Paul meant by the word, rather than making up his own definition!  Last time I checked, digging deeper into the meaning of the biblical texts was something evangelicals valued, and the stance of “this word is locked, we’ve fixed its meaning and nobody is to investigate any further” is much more at home in another strand of Christianity…

(BTW this discussion has been very helpful in clarifying my thinking, so thank you all!)

Tom