NT Wright,re-evaluating Paul?

[Frogster]

Why, because I'm not immediately dismissive of Wright's ideas, without even reading him??

You're the one who's biased! Look at your OP!

Honestly, all I did was go to Wikipedia and provide some basic information about the issues. I can see the force of the argument, but that doesn't mean I'm inordinately biased. I'm pretty new to the issue.

Everyone's biased. I doubt you're going to find anyone interested in the issue who is much less biased than me.

I read Wright's book on theodicy and wasn't overly impressed. He had some good ideas but lots of wishy washy stuff. Suffice it to say that I'm not a "Tom person" and again, you have no reason for labeling me as such.

Seems to me that either you just don't like me, or you're striking out blindly because of your pre-commitment to Protestant tradition. I was hoping to have some actual discussion on the issues surrounding the interpretation of Galatians, but it's clear that you're not up to it, academically or psychologically. You have ruled me out as a person who has a meaningful perspective to offer.

Shame on you. I'm done here.

I am just looking for scripture.

 

[Frogster]

How does this:



lead to this:

?



Can you demonstrate from Scripture that this is what the Gospel is, as opposed to "Jesus Christ is Lord."? And, if we assume for the sake of argument that Wright is correct that the word "Gospel" means "Jesus is Lord", how does that minimize the reality of justification by faith? It seems to me that Wright is saying that justification is the action by which God, the ultimate judge, declares the sinner to be righteous (or in the right), much like a human judge of the first century would make that declaration about the prevailing party in a lawsuit. Certainly, this is metaphorical, but how is this metaphor at odds with the biblical notion of justification?

Lol,I just noticed you asked this poster for scripture.Wow,it would be nice if you did! Anyone can post threads that say this or that is not that,or a Chinese food menu is not Chinnese food! In other words your just saying Gal is not about justification,without scriptural backup.The burden of proof is on you dude.It says justification,does it not?

 

[Frogster]

Sorry? I have no idea what you are referring to wrt Judaism.

Yes, what he says about the phrase Justification by Faith has been contraversial , but it's by no means as out there as one would think from some of the loud shouting. It's just that some people will defend Luther's definition to the death rather than go back to Paul and see if we can't improve on it. And some other people get on the bandwaggon rather than actually go and find out what Tom Wright actually says, prefering to hang off the lie that Wright rejects justification by faith.

Oh.So you want Wright to improve,on Paul.
Did God give Wright the gospel by revelation,or Paul? 3 times in acts,Jesus spoke to Paul,funny thing,he did not correct Paul's message,did he?

 

[Frogster]

This whole notion of "understanding first century Judaism",to understand Galatians is silly.What was happening was obvious.The circumcision party was trying to put a yoke of bondage,the law,on the Church.That was the first century Judaism at work.Trying to put people under the law,the yoke of slavery.

Gal 2:4 Yet because of false brothers secretly brought in—who slipped in to spy out our freedom that we have in Christ Jesus, so that they might bring us into slavery—

Here are their words and intentions from Acts.First century intentions being made known.


Acts 15:1 But some men came down from Judea and were teaching the brothers, “Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved.”

Acts 15:5 But some believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees rose up and said, “It is necessary to circumcise them and to order them to keep the law of Moses.”


It was not about the "community".And Paul had harsh words for them.He said let them be accursed,for perverting the gospel.Later he also said let them castrate themselves in Gal 5:12.


Gal1:6 I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting him who called you in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel— 7 not that there is another one, but there are some who trouble you and want to distort the gospel of Christ. 8 But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed.

Galatians seems pretty clear to me.But I am open to a scriptural challenge.

Paul said if you seek to be justified by law,than Christ died for nothing.Is it just me,or is the clear intent understadable,even to the "UNintellectual" types.

 

[wayseer]

This whole notion of "understanding first century Judaism",to understand Galatians is silly.

Jesus did not come to start a new church - nor a new sect of Judaism. Jesus was a Jew, as was Paul, as was James, as was Peter - none of them were interested in starting a new church. What they were endeavouring to do was to convince other Jews that measuring oneself against the law did not produce the desired result. Until you have some understanding of what was going on within the Jewish culture I'm afraid the only person looking silly is you.

May I suggest you stop your intellectualizing and actual knuckle down and do some study after which you will come to realize that the 'obvious' is not so obvious.

What was happening was obvious.The circumcision party was trying to put a yoke of bondage,the law,on the Church.That was the first century Judaism at work.Trying to put people under the law,the yoke of slavery.

Your party of the circumcision was not 'trying to put a yoke of bondage' on anyone. The 'law' was already applicable so those advocating strict compliance with the law were not effectively doing anything new in this regard. Certainly we have no evidence that Jesus said anything to the contrary. In fact exactly the opposite - he had come to 'fulfill' the law.

Galatians seems pretty clear to me.But I am open to a scriptural challenge.

'Pretty clear' at what? Have you read James - you know, the brother of Jesus. He had some interesting things to say on the matter.

Is it just me,or is the clear intent understadable,even to the "UNintellectual" types.

Probably just you. You are looking for easy answers. I'm sure you will find those answers - for the moment. The time will come when you will realize that what was at first 'clear' and 'understandable' is very murky indeed.

 

[wayseer]

3 times in acts,Jesus spoke to Paul,funny thing,he did not correct Paul's message,did he?

Paul NEVER met Jesus. Paul never sat down and had a chat to Jesus. Paul never walked with Jesus. Paul never lived with Jesus.

But James, the brother of Jesus, did all of those things.

If anyone knew Jesus it would have been his family and James was the eldest.

Perhaps James knew better than Paul what Jesus was really on about.

 

[ebia]

Oh.So you want Wright to improve,on Paul.

I would hope it blatantly obvious that the 'it' in my sentence meant 'Luther's definition', not Paul.

If this is the kind of game you are reduced to.... I'm forced into one of two conclusions, and neither of them are ones I wish to conclude about anybody. And neither of them are compatible with continuing a conversation.

 

[ebia]

The overall picture, if you read what Wright wrote, is that he is diminishing what justification is.

I have read and listen to a lot of his work and I don't agree at all. Mostly what he is doing is clarifying how the language works - and thereby bringing a good deal of clarity to the picture. One big problem in much evangelical (and other) talk is sloppyness of language.

"The gospel is not, you can be saved and here is how, the gospel for Paul is Jesus Christ is Lord."

What? The gospel is that you can be saved and how.

Why have we suddenly switched from talking about what "justification by faith" means to what "gospel" means.

"You can be saved and how" cannot be a gospel. That would ignore what the word means. An evangelion (gospel) is the proclamation of an event - specifically a new emperor/king come to the thrown bringing peace and prosperity. The LXX for Isaiah uses it for YHWH returning to rule bringing peace and prosperity. Applied to Jesus it is both of those. So a short form of stating it is "Jesus is risen and is Lord", or in long form its the Gospel according to St Luke (or Matthew or Mark or John).

You can be saved and here's how follows from the Gospel - in more global sense it is what the 'peace and prosperity are all about' - but it's not suffient on it's own to be a gospel, let alone The Gospel.

Go look at what the evangelion is in Isaiah - it's not a system of how individuals are saved, it's the good news that YWHW has returned bringing his saving rule to effect.

And now we are back to Justification?

For Wright justification is not about our being made righteous by Christ's atoning death, as much as it is about membership in the community of the church.

Lets be clear. Wright affirms that we will be declared righteous, and that it's Jesus' death that enables that.

What is in questions is exactly what the phrase 'justification by faith', and more generally 'justification' connotes within that.

 

[MamaZ]

Sorry? I have no idea what you are referring to wrt Judaism.

Yes, what he says about the phrase Justification by Faith has been contraversial , but it's by no means as out there as one would think from some of the loud shouting. It's just that some people will defend Luther's definition to the death rather than go back to Paul and see if we can't improve on it. And some other people get on the bandwaggon rather than actually go and find out what Tom Wright actually says, prefering to hang off the lie that Wright rejects justification by faith.

I am reading what wright says. I have not read what Luther has said. I have read what the scriptures say so your accusation is moot.

 

[MamaZ]

Did you go through the paper looking for a line you could disagree with, or are we discussing the overall picture in which that quote comes?

nope I am still reading what he wrote..I haven't finished it quite yet

 

[MamaZ]

Paul NEVER met Jesus. Paul never sat down and had a chat to Jesus. Paul never walked with Jesus. Paul never lived with Jesus.

But James, the brother of Jesus, did all of those things.

If anyone knew Jesus it would have been his family and James was the eldest.

Perhaps James knew better than Paul what Jesus was really on about.

Paul may not have met Jesus according to the flesh but I can assure you Paul knew Jesus. Saul before he was Paul met Jesus on the road to Damacus.. To know Jesus is not to know Him according to the flesh. All though Paul states that he knew Jesus accoring to the flesh.

2Co 5:16 Therefore from now on we recognize no one according to the flesh; even though we have known Christ according to the flesh, yet now we know Him in this way no longer.

 

[MamaZ]

I have read and listen to a lot of his work and I don't agree at all. Mostly what he is doing is clarifying how the language works - and thereby bringing a good deal of clarity to the picture. One big problem in much evangelical (and other) talk is sloppyness of language.


Why have we suddenly switched from talking about what "justification by faith" means to what "gospel" means.

"You can be saved and how" cannot be a gospel. That would ignore what the word means. An evangelion (gospel) is the proclamation of an event - specifically a new emperor/king come to the thrown bringing peace and prosperity. The LXX for Isaiah uses it for YHWH returning to rule bringing peace and prosperity. Applied to Jesus it is both of those. So a short form of stating it is "Jesus is risen and is Lord", or in long form its the Gospel according to St Luke (or Matthew or Mark or John).

You can be saved and here's how follows from the Gospel - in more global sense it is what the 'peace and prosperity are all about' - but it's not suffient on it's own to be a gospel, let alone The Gospel.

Go look at what the evangelion is in Isaiah - it's not a system of how individuals are saved, it's the good news that YWHW has returned bringing his saving rule to effect.

And now we are back to Justification?


Lets be clear. Wright affirms that we will be declared righteous, and that it's Jesus' death that enables that.

What is in questions is exactly what the phrase 'justification by faith', and more generally 'justification' connotes within that.

It is not that we will be declared righteous.. It is the fact that in Christ we are declared righteous..

 

[ebia]

It is not that we will be declared righteous.. It is the fact that in Christ we are declared righteous..

Now and not yet. In it's fullness,being deeclared righteous is something that must happen at the final judgement but that can be anticipated in the present - that's what justification by faith is about: the knowing now who will be declared righteous when judgement is given. Who will be declared righteous - God's covenant people. How do we tell who they are - those who have faith in Christ Jesus.

 

[MamaZ]

Now and not yet. In it's fullness,being deeclared righteous is something that must happen at the final judgement but that can be anticipated in the present - that's what justification by faith is about: the knowing now who will be declared righteous when judgement is given. Who will be declared righteous - God's covenant people. How do we tell who they are - those who have faith in Christ Jesus.

We are already jugded and declared righteous.. Not because of what we do or will do or have done. But by the very blood of Jesus. We are the righteousness of Christ Jesus. We will not be judged but our works will be..

 

[ebia]

We are already jugded and declared righteous.. Not because of what we do or will do or have done. But by the very blood of Jesus. We are the righteousness of Christ Jesus. We will not be judged but our works will be..

That's where you position makes no sense, but Tom Wright's does. You've made up an extra judgement now in order to have a verdict now when scripture is clear the judgement is a future event.

I suspect you've also not recognised that the righteousness of the judge (God/Jesus) is not the same sort of thing as the righteousness of the one judged rightous, even though the same word is used for both.

 

[Seeking Him]

How does this:



lead to this:

?



Can you demonstrate from Scripture that this is what the Gospel is, as opposed to "Jesus Christ is Lord."? And, if we assume for the sake of argument that Wright is correct that the word "Gospel" means "Jesus is Lord", how does that minimize the reality of justification by faith? It seems to me that Wright is saying that justification is the action by which God, the ultimate judge, declares the sinner to be righteous (or in the right), much like a human judge of the first century would make that declaration about the prevailing party in a lawsuit. Certainly, this is metaphorical, but how is this metaphor at odds with the biblical notion of justification?

I never said one led to the other. I was explaining two things, one he said the other he believes. Yes Jesus is Lord, in that Wright is correct. It's the all that he leaves out about salvation and justification that is the trouble.

The gospel is obvious. Then angels proclaimed it: unto you is born this day a savior. Gabriel told Daniel, He will put an end to sin, and bring in everlasting righteousness. Good news for sure! Jesus proclaimed He came to set the captives free. He then went about saying repent for the kingdom of heaven is here. Paul said the gospel would bring life and immortality to light. The angel told Joseph He will save his people from their sins. The gospel is the good news of salvation. That is obvious to anyone nto trying to twist the scriptures.

 

[djconklin]

"Justification by faith" as we now know it was originally espoused by Luther and other reformers in the 16th and 17th centuries. Because of the controversy regarding Roman Catholic practice during that time period, the doctrine influenced by the need for a strong polemic against the Roman Catholic Church. The idea is coined by the phrase, Sola fide (faith only).

The problems of the Roman Catholic Church, however, were NOT the same as the Jewish traditions which the apostle Paul was dealing with. A key phrase in the letter to the Galatians is typically translated, "the works of the law." If you pursue this course of action, you will find that you conception of "justification" is defined by assumptions about these Pauline phrases.

In light of the Dead Sea Scroll discoveries, in which the phrase is used frequently, it does not refer to "righteousness by works" or any other sort of legalistic movement, but rather the requirements for acceptance into a sectarian group such as the so-called Qumran covenanters.

Another key word is pistis, and whether it should be translated as "faith" (suggesting an adherence to certain beliefs requisite for salvation) or "faithfulness" (suggesting a subjective commitment to a person or group).

Yet another key word is charis: free "grace," or "favor to be repaid"?

So you see, merely studying an English translation of Paul's letter to the Galatians will not help you unearth centuries of anti-legalistic rhetoric. The problem is the language of the translation itself. Whether you are 29 or 59, if you're not willing to use your intellect (which has apparently been barred from use by an overused and misunderstood verse in 1 Corinthians!) then you're just going to assume that the tradition passed down to you is a fully accurate portrayal of Paul's original intent.

Thanks for your post!

As I understand it then Galatians isn't about justification by faith in the theological sense but a question of whether or not a Gentile had to become a Jew in order to become a member of the community (to stay saved?!?); it doesn't seem to make much sense for a Gentile to become a Jew just to enter into the community.

 

[Frogster]

Jesus did not come to start a new church - nor a new sect of Judaism. Jesus was a Jew, as was Paul, as was James, as was Peter - none of them were interested in starting a new church. What they were endeavouring to do was to convince other Jews that measuring oneself against the law did not produce the desired result. Until you have some understanding of what was going on within the Jewish culture I'm afraid the only person looking silly is you.

Sill is as silly does.I dont want the thread diverted into the whole church debate,but behold scripture!

Matt 16:18 And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rockI will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

When you lay a foundation,that is for something new.

1 Corinthians 3:10
According to the grace of God given to me, like a skilled master builder I laid a foundation, and someone else is building upon it. Let each one take care how he builds upon it.

Ephesians 2:20 built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone,

May I suggest you stop your intellectualizing and actual knuckle down and do some study after which you will come to realize that the 'obvious' is not so obvious.

Perhaps you can give a scriptural reply,rather then a heady lofty ,"I have secret insight" reply.Jesus Peter Paul reasoned from the scriptures,so how about you.Anyone can come on a thread,and just proclaim higher knowledge.Lets see scripture

Your party of the circumcision was not 'trying to put a yoke of bondage' on anyone.

The law was around for a loooong time.The circumcision party,was trying to put law,on the Galatian churches.Here is clear obvious scripture,that Paul did not want a yoke of bondage(the law) put on the church.

Here we see what they were doing.Context dictates the slavery was the law,which I will show you in a moment.

Gal 2:4 Yet because of false brothers secretly brought in—who slipped in to spy out our freedom that we have in Christ Jesus, so that they might bring us into slavery—

Here we see who it was.

Gal 2:12 For before certain men came from James, he was eating with the Gentiles; but when they came he drew back and separated himself, fearing the circumcision party.

Here it shows the clear intent,are you with me?

4:21 Tell me, you who desire to be under the law, do you not listen to the law?

Here we see Paul call the law a yoke of bondage.


5:1 For freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery.

And here,we also see Peter,while addressing the very ones who were trying to push the law,imply that it was a yoke,that no one could bear.The law.

Acts 15:10 Now, therefore, why are you putting God to the test by placing a yoke on the neck of the disciples that neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear?

All so clear.

The 'law' was already applicable so those advocating strict compliance with the law were not effectively doing anything new in this regard. Certainly we have no evidence that Jesus said anything to the contrary. In fact exactly the opposite - he had come to 'fulfill' the law.

He fulfilled it,then nailed it!

Here is clear evidence for you.
First we see ceremonial.They separated Jew and Gentile.
Ephesians 2:15
by abolishing in his flesh the law with its commandments and regulations. His purpose was to create in himself one new man out of the two, thus making peace,

Colossians 2:14
having canceled the written code, with its regulations, that was against us and that stood opposed to us; he took it away, nailing it to the cross

Here we see moral law ,nailed.It was through his body,nailed to a tree.Common deduction.


Romans 7:4
So, my brothers, you also died to the law through the body of Christ, that you might belong to another, to him who was raised from the dead, in order that we might bear fruit to God.

'Pretty clear' at what? Have you read James - you know, the brother of Jesus. He had some interesting things to say on the matter.

Please post scripture,I am not a mind reader.

Probably just you. You are looking for easy answers.

No,but sometimes things are just pretty clear.When the head starts to confuse simplicity,there in lies pride,and disorder,( I don't mean you)and that is what the diminishing of justification produces.

I'm sure you will find those answers - for the moment. The time will come when you will realize that what was at first 'clear' and 'understandable' is very murky indeed.

What is so murky about the law,that was added 430 years later,as a temporary thing,finally coming to an end,where Jew and Gentile become one,and the power of the Spirit within takes over,and we walk in newness of the new cov,not the old.I dunno?? does not seem so murky to me.

From now on,if you could post scripture,that might add validity to your post,so they are substantiated a bit.Thanks.

 

[djconklin]

Now and not yet. In it's fullness,being deeclared righteous is something that must happen at the final judgement but that can be anticipated in the present - that's what justification by faith is about: the knowing now who will be declared righteous when judgement is given. Who will be declared righteous - God's covenant people. How do we tell who they are - those who have faith in Christ Jesus.

Well put, thanks!

 

[djconklin]

Colossians 2:14
having canceled the written code, with its regulations, that was against us and that stood opposed to us; he took it away, nailing it to the cross

Here we see moral law ,nailed.It was through his body,nailed to a tree.Common deduction.

The "cheirographon" (handwriting) isn't the moral law. It is the record of our sins. The Moral Law remains to point out to us that we are sinners, in need of a saviour and to point us to Jesus Christ who will saves us if we confess our sins (transgressions of the law that is holy just and good (Rom. 7:12)).