The most recent issue of Christianity Today has a long article on N.T. Wright, bible scholar and theologian. I've read a bit of his stuff, but am not really very familiar with his theology. The article said that Wright has argued that Christian theology has since the beginning misinterpreted Paul's writings on faith and justification:

I know that a lot of evangelical and conservative Christians are fans of Wright, so I am curious if any of the Christians on this forum agree with Wright here, or their general opinion of this view.

Very interesting topic. I think the biggest point of debate for me is -

"For in the old perspective, God graciously empowers the individual to the faith which leads to salvation and also to good works, while in the new perspective God graciously empowers individuals to the faith and good works, which lead to salvation." (wikipedia)

I agree with Wright on many points, but I disagree with this one. My perspective is salvation through faith, which is demonstrated by works. Sin would be a symptom of a lack of faith which is required for salvation. This is more or less a popular evangelical view, but it does make me think.

I'm not sure where you disagree with him. Here is the rest of the quotation from wiki:

According to wikipedia he is not claiming that works somehow contribute to salvation, but are rather a vindication of God's work in Christians. This is because he explicitly separates conversion from justification.

I agree with your second quoted section. Works do not contribute to salvation. Works simply show the condition of your heart and mind. All the "work" was done by Christ on the cross.... thats the gospel message.

You don't need works to be saved, but if you are in relationship with Christ you will have some works to go along with your faith.

EDIT: I find it funny Orp that you read Christianity Today. I am a Christian and I would not want to read that publication lol

That's interesting, I'll have to examine this a little closer. I'm not sure what the point of the new perspective noting the subtle difference of works and faith towards salvation vs faith towards salvation and works, if it still maintains a salvation via faith alone perspective. I may have misunderstood, I'll have to re-read it.

I am not sure that the works vs. faith angle that you and Naked Rectitude are focusing on is really the core of Wright's innovations in theology. That is after all a very old debate. Any change here for Wright here would be a result of a different understanding of salvation and justification rather than a disagreement about their requirements.

Really? Why not? I don't really read it--more a matter of scanning the ToC and reading an article if it catches my eye.

NT Wright is indeed attacking the foundational doctrine of justification by faith alone, which is why guys like John Piper have written books excoriating his position:

http://www.amazon.com/The-Future-Jus.../dp/1581349645

What do you mean by "attacking" the doctrine of justification by faith alone? For instance, here is Wright from an earlier article in Christianity Today:

That sure looks to me like he accepts that doctrine. Furthermore, while Piper's book does criticize Wright's view of justification, I don't see him claiming that Wright rejects justification by faith alone.

Rather, the major difference seems to be that Piper takes the traditional view that justification works by God "imputing" the moral perfection of Jesus to those who have faith in them--morally justifying them so that they can avoid punishment by God, whereas Wright views justification as a legal rather than moral term, where God says that those who are part of the covenant originally made with Abraham and Israel, but now open to all people through the death and resurrection of Jesus, will not be punished by God.

WLC covers the NPP here, Doctrine of Salvation Part 10, and I think a little more in Part 11. He deals with someone named Sanders who he says is the originator of this interpretation via a book circa 1976.

http://feeds.feedburner.com/DefendersPodcast

I highly recommend the entire series, up to Part 15 as of this week.

Thank you, I appreciate the link.

"Present justification declares, on the basis of faith, what future justification will affirm publicly... on the basis of the entire life." [2]

In the end, justification comes not through faith receiving Christ's imputed righteousness, but by "the Spirit-led life," [3]

since future justification is "on the basis of the entire life" [4] and its performance of good works.

[2] N.T. Wright, What Saint Paul Really Said (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997), 129.
[3] N.T. Wright, Romans, 580.
[4] Ibid., 129.

Here's another link that summarizes Wright's position on justification:
http://www.ligonier.org/learn/articl...spective-paul/

I saw a reference to this article, or some article about Wright and the NPP on Andrew Sullivan's blog recently, but I haven't been able to actually read much about it

Although based on that ligonier.org criticism, I think I'm sympathetic to this:

Wright draws a distinction between present and future justification that doesn't map neatly onto the traditional Reformed doctrine of justification, so I don't think this shows much. Wright says explicitly that he believes that "present justification" is by faith alone, but "future justification" is not. So doesn't show

Wright does clearly reject the view that justification works through Jesus' righteousness being imputed to believers (this is because he thinks justification is better understood as a legal rather moral category).

Okay?

I'm not really getting a sense of much engagement with Wright's thought in this thread (which is of course fine, although my understanding is that NPP is accepted by most Bible scholars). I already knew that his view of justification is different from the traditional Reformed view. However, the article in Christianity Today paints him as one of the most important theologians/Bible scholars of the last 50 years--and one that more conservative or evangelical Christians can engage with on their own terms. Do you guys not agree with this characterization? Or do you think that we don't need to do theology anymore--Calvin, Luther, etc. already figured what we need to know?

Those in any of the Reformed camps think that NPP is borderline heresy, so I wouldn't say it's accepted by most Bible scholars at all.

He admits that his position on justification is motivated by an attempt at unity between the Protestants and Roman Catholics. I have the quotes to show this, but wasn't able to find them yesterday... I'll keep looking.

I own a couple books that have been on my "to read" list for about a year now. I am interested in what he has to say to see how much already fits with what I believe and how much will need to be evaluated to see how much change would be necessary in order to fit within a coherent system of theology (which a process distinct from adopting it as a part of my system of theology).

So I can't say much for now except that I find what he says to be interesting.

Is being a borderline heresy the same as being a heresy?

Also, I don't think that the "Reformed camps" constitute such a broad range of Christian thought that by missing them alone one could conclude that it's not accepted by "most Bible scholars." There's also a difference between pastors and scholars, and I'm not sure who you're thinking about when you talk about the "Reformed camps."

Let's suppose it's true that he said this (and I have no reason to doubt you). What consequences does that entail?

Do you believe that the Roman Catholic position and the Protestant view are completely irreconcilable in every aspect as it pertains to justification, so that such an attempt at unity must necessarily fail?

I don't think the doctrine of justification can be reconciled, to be distinguished from the people themselves.

There is an ambivalence here in that C1 specifies works done by one's own natural powers and without God's help and C24 leaves that out and just says (good) works. So who really knows what they mean?

So if they insist on this wording, and AFAIK Trent is still official RC doctrine, I don't see any reconciliation.

BTW, Trent is very mushy on the definition of justification, seeming to sometimes confuse it with sanctification.

I'm not really sure how he differs theologically from standard/strict Calvinism:

God decides whether you are yucky or not. If you are not yucky, you will do good works because you are not yucky. Doing good works is a sign that you aren't yucky, but doing good works isn't what makes you not yucky.

It is easier if you keep in mind that it isn't your job to grant grace, justify, etc. Your opinion on whether someone has been granted grace, or whether their acts justify the grace (or more properly, vice versa) isn't of any importance at all.

Seems to be setting the bar a bit too high for anything other than an Aaron W-style conversation.

Of course two different conceptions can't be a unity. That doesn't mean that 248 is as different from 1 as 2 is.

Your numerical analogy is stupid. "Being a unity" is in a numerical sense is "equality" and nobody is claiming anything remotely close to an equality of views. Furthermore "being a unity" is a different type of measurement than "distance" (which is the implied concept that your argument is using). And distance is still pretty wrong. It's much more like looking at the intersection of sets.

If the two views are not "completely irreconcilable in every aspect", then they are reconcilable in some aspect. And if they are reconcilable in that aspect, then there is a unity that can be found between the two positions.

It is fairly easy to see where the views are reconcilable and where they aren't. I'm just taken aback by the stupidity of the question of whether they are "completely irreconcilable in every aspect." You couldn't possibly have meant it as a serious question.

Again, with the idiosyncratic use of words. Where you say "unity" can I assume that you meant to use the word "commonality."

Find the common element:

Catholic: Only through the grace of god combined with good works.
Reformed Protestant: Only through the grace of god.

Colossians 2: ⁸ Beware, lest any man make you naked by philosophy and by vain deception, according to the doctrines of men, according to the rudiments of the world, and not according to the Mashiyach ⁹ in whom dwells all the fullness of Elohim bodily.

Thought this was interesting.