Did the reformers get justification wrong?

Comments

7 responses to “Did the reformers get justification wrong?”

1. December 9, 2005

   Chip Frontz

   You’re right – that article is cursory. It points to no source in which one can read Wright’s articulation of his reading of Paul. One book that he wrote was The Climax of the Covenant, on Paul’s understanding. He also has written a commentary on Romans and
   has come out with a new “short” book on Paul, available from Fortress Press: http://www.augsburgfortress.org

   Richard Hays, Duke biblical scholar, is another who thinks that the 16th century interpretation of justification might be skewed to one side. Instead of “saved by faith in Jesus Christ,” as the traditional translation of Galatians 2 has been written, he has proposed for the past twenty years “saved by the faith of Jesus Christ,” an alternate reading of the very same Gk. text. This, ironically, is a stronger view of justification by faith since we do not even contribute our faith to the saving enterprise!

   I think that the Reformers may not have gotten it so wrong, but perhaps their interpreters have. Luther was dealing with a far different problem than most of us in the twenty-first century. And he himself said in the preface to the Small Catechism that “since the Gospel has been restored the people have mastered the fine art of abusing liberty.” In other words, justification by faith wasn’t working like he planned.

   Reply
2. December 9, 2005

   Lee

   I read his “What St. Paul Really Said,” which was I guess I kind of popularized version. Somewhere in there he says something to the effect of “People aren’t saved by believing in justification by faith, they’re saved by believing in Jesus!” And I thought, yeah that’s right! But is that really a radical departure from what the Reformers were saying?

   Okay, just found a brief article by Wright – “The Shape of Justification” where he says the same thing:

   “By ‘the gospel’ Paul does not mean ‘justification by faith.’ He means the announcement that the crucified and risen Jesus is Lord. To believe this message—to give believing allegiance to Jesus as Messiah and Lord—is to be justified in the present by faith (whether or not one has even heard of justification by faith). Justification by faith is a second-order doctrine: To believe it is both to have assurance (believing that one will be vindicated on the last day [Romans 5:1-5]) and to know that one belongs in the single family of God, called to share table fellowship with all other believers without distinction (Galatians 2:11-21). But one is not justified by faith by believing in justification by faith, but by believing in Jesus.”

   http://www.ntwrightpage.com/Wright_BR_Shape_Justification.htm

   That strikes me as very similar to what Jenson & Gritsch say in their book on Lutheranism. Maybe I’m missing something…?

   Reply
3. December 9, 2005

   Andy

   I think the question is (certainly when you start invoking the Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals as Wright’s opponents) whether the “Reformation doctrine” of imputed righteousness is a technically correct interpretation of Paul’s writings. I’m am convinced by Wright’s arguments in “What St. Paul Really Said” (as well as Ed Sanders’ “Paul: A Very Short Introduction”) that it is not.

   One of the ironies in Wright’s work is that it turns out our traditional thinking on “the works-righteousness of the Pharisees” was also completely wrong.

   But another irony, and I find it strange that the Journal piece doesn’t say something about this, is that although Wright is saying that the Protestant orthodoxy that emerged from the Reformation is basically wrong about imputed righteousness, the substance of the Reformation complaint against Medieval Catholicism was still right.

   The new Finnish interpretation of Luther adds another interesting twist to this. George Lindbeck’s work with regard to the significance of ecumenical dialogue is also relevant.

   Reply
4. December 9, 2005

   Lee

   Here’s an interesting post from John H. at Confessing Evangelical (he’s a British Lutheran) discussing the same Wright article I linked to:

   http://confessingevangelical.blogspot.com/2005/05/three-tenses-of-justification.html

   His verdict: Wright is “more Lutheran than he thinks he is.”

   Reply
5. December 9, 2005

   Eric Lee

   How different is it when Bonhoeffer says, “Those who have faith, obey; and those who obey, have faith” ?

   Reply
6. December 9, 2005

   Andy

   Wright is “more Lutheran than he thinks he is.”

   Oh sure, I found reading Wright to be a very affirming experience with regard to my basic theological orientation. John seems to read Wright as if he were trying to discredit Lutheranism, but my impression has been that, at most, he’s critiquing perspectives too firmly tied to 16th century formulations. Sadly, some confessional Lutheranism fits that bill.

   And this is where the real issue lies. Just as some Lutherans read the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification and think, “Yeah, that sounds about right,” while others read it as a linguistic trick that compromises everything the Reformers fought for, even so some people see Wright’s persepctive as in total harmony with the spirit of Lutheranism, while others perceive it as a threat.

   Check out this link for a lengthy article by J. Ligon Duncan on Wright’s perspective. (I admit that I haven’t and probably won’t read this entire behemoth.)

   In it Duncan makes the following statement:

   So, if you were to quote approvingly the answer to the Westminster Shorter Catechism’s Question 33 as your view of Paul’s teaching on justification, “Justification is an act of God’s free grace, wherein he pardons all our sins, and accepts us as righteous in his sight, only for the righteousness of Christ imputed to us, and received by faith alone,” and then ask N.T. Wright to comment, he might say something like this “Well, there are at least three problems with that particular answer. First of all, it doesn’t understand what justification is. Justification has a forensic aspect, true, but it primarily has to do with how you know you are a member of God’s people. Second, this definition imports an idea alien into the biblical text, the idea of imputation. Imputation is nowhere to be found, in either the teaching of Paul, anywhere else in the New Testament, or indeed anywhere in the first century context of the New Testament. Third, it misplaces the subject of justification by putting it in the category of soteriology, the doctrine of salvation, whereas justification really ought to be back in the ethical section of the Shorter Catechism under the rubric of ecclesiology.” That is how comprehensive the rejection of a traditional understanding of justification you would get.

   Now, in spite of the quotes, these are Duncan’s words, not Wright’s, but I think they are a fair summary of Wright’s position. So, is there a problem there? Duncan thinks so. I don’t.

   Reply
7. December 12, 2005

   Lee

   Though I haven’t read a lot of Wright, the idea of separating – much less opposing – soteriology and ecclessiology strikes me as one of those unhelpful either-or dilemmas that theology so often seems to get into. Given the importance that Luther in particular attaches on the role of baptism in justification, the eccelsial context would appear to be hugely important.

   And maybe someone like Duncan means something special by “imputation,” but surely no one (including Wright) denies that the NT teaches that our sins are forgiven on account of Christ’s work, and what else is that but an imputation of rigtheousness (or, what seems to me to amount to the same thing, a non-imputation of sin) – pardon, in other words?

   Reply