After considering where to start this thread I decided to enter it here, with some reluctance. What N.T. Wright teaches is controversial in relation to justification and "imputed righteousness." However, I feel he has something to offer, whether one is a Calvinist, non-Calvinist (or Arminian)...or just a believer!
N.T. Wright, I should point out, has a lot to say about the Kingdom of God (which is to say he offers much more than this one issue of justification/imputed righteousness).
I highly recommend this lecture series by way of introduction to the thought of N.T. Wright (and also it is a good review of Reformed or "Covenant" theology!):
The Doctrine of Justification
in the Work of N.T. Wright,
by Bill Wilder,
Director of Educational Ministries
Delivered
March - April 2005
Center for Christian Study,
Charlottesville, VA
I've listened to all four of these lectures a few times. Bill Wilder explains what traditional Reformed theology (and actually, what most Protestant theology) teaches on justification and contrasts it with the NPP ("New Perspective on Paul") and, more specifically, with the teachings of N.T. Wright.The Course Description wrote:For the past twenty-five years the world of biblical scholarship has been shaken by the so-called "Sanders Revolution" and the "New Perspective" on Paul. Tremors are now increasingly felt in the church as well. Denying that the Judaism of Paul's time was legalistic or characterized by an emphasis on "works-righteousness," proponents of this new and now dominant approach in scholarship have demanded a thorough reappraisal of Paul's view of the law. Even some of those critical of the "New Perspective" per se have begun (for other reasons) to question the traditional Protestant formulations of justification by faith rather than by works and the imputation of the alien righteousness of Christ. Suddenly it seems that everything is being redefined: the faith/works contrast, the righteousness of God, imputation, justification.
Drawing on the insights of the "New Perspective" and yet fitting into no particular school—indeed, forging his own paradigm in a way that defies easy categorization—N.T. Wright has moved to the center of the current reevaluation of old assumptions. Determined to follow the New Testament trail wherever it leads, Wright is a guide who can be as disorienting as he is brilliant. Old, familiar landmarks have been moved to new locations with new functions: what used to be the bank on the corner is now the courthouse next door, as it were. Nevertheless, Wright's importance as a scholar and as a churchman (he is the bishop of Durham for the Church of England) commends his work for our closest attention. Indeed, our understanding of crucial passages in the New Testament and Paul is at stake.
The purpose, then, of this lecture series is to examine the work and thought of N.T. Wright, particularly with respect to the doctrine of justification, within its proper contexts: the revolution within Pauline studies in the last quarter century; the traditional formulations of the church; and, most especially, the thought-world of first-century Judaism and of that most provocative of Jews and Christians, the apostle Paul.
Wright's "Romans in a Day" are probably his best "introductory" lectures & can be found here: NTWRIGHTPAGE.COM. There's a lot of information to digest in these three lectures. But I recommend them for "starters" as Wright outlines what he thinks Paul taught in Romans -- as well as covering the current controversial issues in Pauline studies. I've listened to quite a few other lectures on the NPP and N.T. Wright, pro and con, and have links to them (and can provide them here, later)....
For now I don't have much to comment about. I'm still studying and taking a lot in! Briefly, I'll say, "I think Wright is onto something" (actually, he's onto many things as his teaching is all encompassing). The area of dispute regarding what Wright teaches is in the theological category of "imputed righteousness" and/or the doctrine of justification. Wright does not believe Paul taught that we receive God's own and/or Christ's own righteousness: it is not "imputed" to us. Rather, being justified by God is His declaration to us "that we are in the right" (in right relationship to God) as Wright states it.
Another way Wright explains this is how a judge doesn't give (or impute) his own personal righteousness to a defendant: as a righteous judge retains this personal characteristic within himself (regardless of his declaration (decision) on any case). God, as our judge, does declare us "not guilty" by reason of the death of Jesus for our sins. But in doing so, God has not given (imputed) His own, or Jesus' own, righteousness to us. Justification, according to Wright, is God's declaration that we are "justified (forgiven) sinners" and that, in having this new status, we are members of His family: "Justification is our badge of covenant membership," he says.
If N.T. Wright is right, we need to do some rethinking about not only Reformed theology, but Protestant theology in general.
Well, it's been a long week...I need some rest. 'Just wanted to get this thread started.
Thanks,
Rick
P.S. I realize N.T. Wright teaches some things that are controversial and that some Reformed and/or Calvinist people have a very low opinion of him....And I don't want to get into (yet another) "big ugly debate"...I'm interested in learning...and hope y'all can understand this, and if you care to join in, please do: God Bless!
