One In Jesus

One of Wright’s most controversial arguments is that there is no Biblical basis for the doctrine of “imputed righteousness.” This is the view that we are saved because Jesus’ merits are credited to Christians.

Now, this should not be confused with substitutionary atonement, which teaches that Jesus accepted our punishment for us, which Wright plainly teaches. The question isn’t whether Jesus saves–it’s whether the means of salvation is our being credited with Jesus’ merits.

Wikipedia (okay, not a work of great theology, but it’s an easy place to start) cites in favor of this view 2 Corinthians 5:21; 1 Corinthians 1:30; and Romans 4:6 (as do a number of articles posted in opposition to Wright’s views). Continue reading →

The faithfulness of Christ

Nothing is more helpful to my own study than readers who disagree or raise hard questions. Such questions allow me to consider points I wouldn’t have thought of on my own.

Alan Rouse argues,

I think it is a bit of a stretch to translate one phrase of Gal 2:16-17 as “faithfulness of Christ” when the same word “faith” is used in the other sense in adjacent verses. Such a choice would necessarily carry some preconceived doctrinal preferences, since there is nothing in the Greek to indicate that choice. The original Greek-speaking audience would have seen the same word in each place. They would have had to draw their understanding from the context, without any distinction in the actual words. I think that is what we should do also.

Compare Gal 2:16 “faith of Christ” with Rom 3:22 “faith of Jesus Christ” and Mark 11:22 “Have faith of God”. It does not seem unreasonable to understand these passages as referring to our faith which we receive from Jesus and from God. If faith is certainty of things unseen, then it does not make sense to speak of God having faith. OTOH it makes perfect sense to speak of God granting faith. (Eph 2:8) Continue reading →

Justification is, of course, a major New Testament theme, especially in Romans and Galatians. Wright insists on redefining the term contrary to 500 years of Reformation history.

He sees “justification” as coming from the terminology of the law court. When a man is tried by a judge and found innocent, in the First Century, he was declared “justified” by the judge.

Hence, “justification” is not the process of gaining faith or even being saved. Justification is the judge’s declaration that the accused has been vindicated. Continue reading →

As previously noted, Wright’s understanding of justification is perhaps his most controversial teaching, as it runs ever so contrary to Reformation doctrine.

Remarkably, Wright, an Anglican bishop, challenges 500 years of Protestant teaching (but then, Luther and Calvin challenged over 1,000 years of Catholic teaching).

Wright says,

Lawcourt imagery is appropriate because God is the God of justice, who is bound to put the world to rights, has promised to do so, and intends to keep his promises. But the means by which he will do so, from Genesis 12 onwards, is through the covenant he has made with Abraham; so that God’s covenant faithfulness on the one hand, and God’s justice on the other, are not two quite different things, but closely interlinked.

Continue reading →

This is perhaps the part of Wright’s New Perspective that is most controversial (which is saying a lot!) Wright believes that Paul’s central concept of “justification” has been misunderstood in a subtle but profoundly important way.

Even since Luther, the Protestant churches have taken “justification” to refer to the saving event, particularly, being converted. Wright believes that justification occurs immediately following our conversion. It’s God declaration–as our judge–that we are vindicated: “not guilty.”

The significance of this fine distinction is not immediately obvious, but for Wright, it’s a step toward a radical rethinking of imputed righteousness–that is, the concept that Christians are saved because Jesus’ merits are credited to them. Continue reading →

Paul frequently writes of the “righteousness of God,” especially in Romans. The New International Version obscures this phrase, sometimes translating “righteousness from God” or the like. But the KJV and some of the other translations get it right.

Of course, as we tend to approach the scriptures looking for how to be saved, and as we expect to have Jesus’ righteousness imputed to us, as good Protestants, we are expecting to see “righteousness from God.” But Wright disputes the translation–

Paul always uses this phrase to denote, not the status which God’s people have from him or in his presence, but the righteousness of God himself.

Now, Wright doesn’t dispute that God’s people are to be righteous. He’s just challenging the mistranslation of this particular phrase.

Indeed, Wright sees the phrase as having cosmic significance– Continue reading →