Trevin Wax on His Interview with Wright

A few days ago Trevin Wax posted an interview he conducted with N.T. Wright. There is some great discussion going on over at the Kingdom People blog. Here is a comment that Trevin made in response to some questions and comments that I find helpful:

"First, responding to BJ…

Your question about Wright and Piper’s view on the “grounds for salvation” is actually not what this discussion is about. Keep in mind that Wright and Piper are using the same terms in different ways.

Wright is using the term “justification” in an ecclesiological sense. That is… he is saying that what marks us out as being part of the kingdom of God is our faith - not circumcision, Sabbath-keeping, etc. In other words, justification is concerned with “who is in the covenant.” He seeks to uphold this definition by putting passages like Ephesians 2 in context (after the “by grace you are saved through faith” section follows an extended passage on God bringing together Jew and Gentile). Also key for Wright is Galatians 2. When Paul confronts Peter, what is it over? Ecclesiology. Peter won’t sit with the Gentiles. He is waffling on “the mark” of the covenant, which is now faith in Jesus - not the Jewish Law.

So when Wright says one is justified on the Last Day by works, he is NOT saying that one is saved by works. He is not using “salvation” and “justification” as synonyms. In fact, he caught me doing this in my first interview with him (Nov. ‘07). I asked a question about justification by works, switched over to talking about salvation, and he said I was equating them… He was right. I was. But he’s not and he wants to be emphatic about that. Salvation is by grace alone.

So part of this discussion is about how to frame the doctrine of justification. Is it merely an ecclesiological doctrine (that is, it speaks to who is part of God’s people) or is it also a soteriological doctrine (that is, it solves the problem of how one gets to be part of God’s people)? Piper and many in the Reformed tradition see it as the latter. Wright and others in the Reformed tradition (including Baxter and a few others it can be argued - Michael Bird is the expert on this) see it as the former.

In answer to Tim, who wants me to peek my head up and give a verdict… I enjoy the works of Piper and Wright and have benefited greatly from both. I feel indebted to Wright for his work on the historical Jesus, which helped me to see how Jesus actually fit his historical context. I am indebted to Piper for his God-centered theology that focuses on the glory of Christ.

To see where I line up, take a look at my extensive commentary on “The Future of Justification” and also a series I did about a year ago called “New Perspective Positives,” where I demonstrate a few places that the New Perspective provides a healthy corrective to evangelical theology. I believe there are some key points made by the NP that can be incorporated into a conservative theological framework that leaves intact the traditional categories of historic Protestant theology.

Regarding the debate over justification… Think of Wright’s theology as a movie camera that focuses in on the background instead of the foreground. (You’ve seen movies or TV shows where the background is brought into focus and the foreground is fuzzy.) I think Wright is correct to see the ecclesiological ramifications of justification that are often absent from Reformed expositions. The ecclesiological question is bigger than we’ve made it out to be in the past. So in that sense, I think it is a help to look at the ecclesiological background.

But when we take Wright’s approach, the foreground gets fuzzy. The foreground is the soteriological dimension of justification that (agreeing with Piper) I believe is part of Paul’s view. In other words, Wright is helpful in focusing our attention on the ecclesiological dimension of justification and unhelpful in that he too often reduces it to that dimension alone.

But let me again say… I enjoy the works of both these men. And though I would be more aligned with Piper on the issue of justification, I would actually be more aligned with Wright & Goldsworthy (and others) on Paul’s definition of “the gospel.” So… I’m one of these guys who is grateful for the opportunity to read and learn from both these men.

Wright is not as dangerous as Piper makes him out to be; Piper is not as bad as Wright makes him out to be. Once you keep that in mind, you can read both these guys and appreciate their collective strengths and weaknesses.

That’s my two cents."

An Appreciation and Criticism of the “New” Reformers

1) A Stress on the Importance of Penal Substitution

Man is guilty. God is holy. Jesus lived a perfect life. Jesus died in the place of sinners, bearing the wrath of God. Although this isn’t all that the Bible has to say about the work of Christ it is central to what Jesus accomplished on the cross. In fact, the early church saw Jesus’ substitutionary death as an important facet in the gospel they preached. Paul said that the fact that Christ died for our sins was a matter of first importance. Certainly substitution is in view in that passage. For Paul, along with the ‘New Reformers’, penal substitution was an integral part of the gospel he preached.

2) An Emphasis on Systematic Theology and Practical Living

I went to a reformed seminary where there was a heavy emphasis on systematic theology. I remember one day during a book sale a group of students rushed over to the systematic theology section in hopes of some good finds. There are ups and downs to systematic theology. A particularly beneficial ‘up’ is that is helps us understand what the bible says about a given topic and allows Christian’s to apply biblical truths to their lives. In the new reformed camp there is a heavy emphasis on practical theology (i.e. C.J. Mahaney, John Piper, Joshua Harries, etc.). True Christian living is grounded in the truth of God (i.e. because this is true, do this).

3) An Appreciation for History

One of the greatest gifts the ‘reformed’ tradition has given us is its stress on church history. There is a mark of humility in their willingness to look to those who have gone before them; they use men and women from years past to teach them how to live for Christ and gain insight into the written word of God.

4) The Importance of Heart Religion

John Piper, perhaps more than any of the reformers, shows from God’s word that the triune God doesn’t just want us to perform our ‘duty’. Rather, he desires that we seek our true everlasting joy in the God who created us and saves us through his Son. The illustration of a man giving flowers to his wife and saying, “honey this is my duty” shows the foolishness of trying to serve God without a heart for God. Holiness is truly a matter of the heart.

5) Delight in the Sovereignty of God

Many people find the doctrine of election offensive. But reformers truly delight in the grace of God in drawing dead sinners to himself and redeeming them from the slavery of sin. In eternity past each individual Christian was chosen by God out of his sheer grace, not based on anything they have done. The God of grace simply loves sinners and awakens them from their dead state. Why? Because he loved them.

6) The Importance of Justification by Faith

How are sinners made right with God? By Works? No. They are made right with God through their faith in Jesus Christ. In reformed theology the doctrine of Justification is seen to be central to the theology of the apostle Paul. Because of what Christ did we can have everlasting fellowship with God. We no longer need to fear judgment because there is no longer any condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. God looks at all those who have placed their faith in Jesus and declares, “Righteous!”

There are many more positive things that could be said about the ‘new’ reformers; however, there are some criticisms that should be raised.

1) Incomplete Gospel

This is one of my serious concerns for the Reformed tradition. While they rightly stress the fact that a gospel preached that excludes the death of Jesus on behalf of our sins is incomplete they tend to error in that they don’t emphasize the Resurrection of Christ and the Lordship of Christ as much. They are good at looking to 1 Corinthians 15. 1-3 but sometimes fail to emphasize Romans 1.1-4. I’m not saying that they don’t emphasize this at all. But it seems to me that their Gospel tends to be a statement of the doctrine of penal substitution. “God is Holy. Man is a sinner. Jesus lived a perfect life. Jesus died for our sins so that we could be forgiven. Jesus rose from the dead.” However, one is hard pressed to find the gospel laid out this way in the bible. Penal substitution is central to the gospel but it is not the sum of the gospel. The gospel is about the fact that although Jesus was killed on a cross God raised him to life; he has been designated as the Messiah (or the true Lord of the world). By believing in this Jesus we can have forgiveness of our sins. This too needs unpacking but both the resurrection and death of Christ need to be stressed. The Gospel is a statement about Christ and what he has accomplished. These things also need to be seen in the context of God’s relationship to Israel. Too often the gospel begins at Eden and then skips ahead to the cross. However, a significant portion of the bible is written about God’s chosen people. Although it may seem tough we need to get serious about the fact that what Jesus did was the climax of Israel’s history. People like N.T. Wright make a similar error; however, he has it the other way around. He stresses cosmic facet of the gospel (i.e. Christ’s lordship) but de-emphasizes the forgiveness of sins as part of the proclamation. This is how a person can appreciate both the reformation and N.T. Wright. Both have good things to say but both fall short in some respects.

2) Making Imputation the Center

Sometimes people talk as if imputation were the center of the bible. While I do passionately believe in the imputation of Christ’s righteousness (however I do prefer what Michael Bird calls ‘Incorporated Righteousness’) I don’t think that it is the center of the bible. I also believe that it can be stated in different ways (just like Michael Bird). One would be hard pressed to prove that the imputation of Christ’s moral righteousness is the central idea of the bible that the OT points forward to. The doctrine itself is not found in any single text. Some texts talk about being ‘reckoned’ righteous but this does not lay out the doctrine in its full form. In other words, nowhere in the bible does it say, “We are sinners, Jesus lived a perfect life, Jesus’ moral righteousness is imputed to us.” There are texts that come close but it is better to let the texts speak for themselves.

We constantly need to be shaping our beliefs by the word of God. There are many things that are to be learned about justification. We do know true things but we haven’t nailed it yet. We need to explore the fact that when Paul talks about justification it takes place in the context of Jew and Gentile relations. We need to avoid the idea that we have arrived and have said all there is to say about this great doctrine.

With that said Justification is incredibly important. God does declare us righteous by virtue of our union with Christ. This doesn’t happen by anything we do but by faith alone. What is true of Jesus is true of us. As important as this doctrine is, I think we can stand united with those who vary on their understanding of this doctrine. The central thing is that God declares us to be righteous by faith by virtue of our union with Christ. Some people preach a heretical justification, just like those Paul was facing off against in Galatians, but we need to be very careful in making this claim and our reasons need to be biblically grounded.

3) Skipping Over Israel

Not all of the reformers do this but there is a disturbing silence about Israel out there. As I said earlier, when presenting the story of the Bible, many just skip over Israel. However, what Jesus did is the climax of Israel’s history. Jesus is the messiah of Israel and the whole world. Even the great passage of the suffering servant is written in the context of Israel’s exile. This will help us understand why the fact that Jesus is the messiah is good news. This too needs further exploration if we are to be faithful to the biblical texts.

Romans 1.1-7: Paul, Set Apart for God’s Gospel

I am going to start some personal ‘devos’ on Paul’s letter to the Romans. I thought that it would be helpful if I posted my reflections so others can help me out. I don’t plan on giving a super detailed exposition of the book, just some thoughts. This is a hard book so sometimes I will probably get bogged down. Hopefully I won’t give up. I will be mainly relying on the NET Bible for my translation. Unfortunately I don’t know Greek, as I didn’t even finish second year, so I can’t translate myself. However, I will be looking at a whole bunch of translations on my own.

Romans 1.1-7

1:1 From Paul,a slave of Christ Jesus, called to be an apostle, set apart for the gospel of God. 1:2 This gospel he promised beforehand through his prophets in the holy scriptures, 1:3 concerning his Son who was a descendant of David with reference to the flesh, 1:4 who was appointed the Son-of-God-in-power according to the Holy Spirit by the resurrection from the dead, Jesus Christ our Lord. 1:5 Through him we have received grace and our apostleship to bring about the obedience of faith among all the Gentiles on behalf of his name. 1:6 You also are among them, called to belong to Jesus Christ. 1:7 To all those loved by God in Rome, called to be saints: Grace and peace to you from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ!

This letter is from the apostle Paul. He says that he is a ‘slave’ of Christ Jesus, that he is called to be an apostle, and that God has set him apart for the gospel. Paul was a zealous Jew before he was saved; he persecuted Christians and thought that by doing so he was doing God’s will. But the risen Christ revealed himself to this Jew and the man was never the same. Jesus enlisted him into the ‘army of apostles’ in order to preach that Jesus was the world’s true Lord.

Here Paul set’s forth the gospel he preaches. In this passage, but not in all, he focuses mainly on Christology, or the identity of Christ. This gospel reaches back into the promises that were made to Israel, God’s special people. As such Paul’s gospel is not abandoning Judaism but actually fulfills God’s purposes for his people.

Simply put, the gospel is about Jesus. Jesus is God’s son who is a human descendant of King David. This is important. It isn’t simply saying that Paul emphasizes Jesus’ humanity and then uses the term ‘Son of God’ to emphasize his divinity. Rather, Jesus is the true King that was promised: “When your days are fulfilled and you lie down with your fathers, I will raise up your offspring after you, who shall come from your body, and I will establish his kingdom. He shall build a house for my name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever” (2 Sam. 7.12, 13 ESV).

When Jesus was raised from the dead by the Holy Spirit, he was designated as the Son of God. Not that he wasn’t God’s son before (see Douglas J. Moo’s commentary on Romans) but he is now the crucified, risen and reigning Messiah.

I asked my wife one day, as she was a classical studies major, what would the Romans think if Paul was telling them that Jesus was the true ‘Son of God’ and that he was ‘Lord’? These were titles that were given to Caesar. So they would have instantly thought, “Jesus is Lord and Caesar is not!” Jesus, the world’s rightful Lord, is taking the world back for himself. He was doing this by sending apostles out to announce the good news. When a person becomes a Christian they come under the gracious rule of the crucified, risen and reigning Messiah. They have pledged their allegiance to the true Lord of the world, Jesus Christ.

The Messianic Feast

I think it would be safe to say that many people, in their twenty-something’s, spend their Friday night looking to get drunk, or at least rely on alcohol as the source of ‘fun’. In my experience growing up, if there is no alcohol consumption taking place at a party it is considered boring and not worth ‘making an appearance’. Our culture is obsessed with alcoholism. But why? Most people probably simply enjoy the feelings they get from such experience. Not to mention if both sexes are together getting hammered something is ‘bound’ to happen. Simply put, our culture’s infatuation with drunkenness is pleasure seeking.

The church has responded in different ways to the sins of our culture. Some have supposed that since people in our day use alcohol in such immoral ways we ought to avoid it altogether. Others see alcohol as a gift from God; for them Christians are free to enjoy it as long as it doesn’t lead to abuse and drunkenness.

Whatever your personal view on this, the bible frequently uses wine to depict the joy, delight and abundance of God’s people in the messianic age. The prophet Jeremiah said, “They will come and shout for joy on the heights of Zion; they will rejoice in the bounty of the Lord – the grain, the new wine and the olive oil, the young of the flocks and herds. They will be like a well-watered garden, and they will sorrow no more” (Jer. 31.12 emphasis added). God’s people were being punished for their sins against Yahweh. They were sent into exile but a day was promised when they would ‘rejoice in the bounty of the Lord’.

In the Gospel of John when Jesus first begins his ministry he attends a wedding feast. It is a popular story where the wine runs out, a social embarrassment in that day which could actually lead to lawsuits, and Jesus’ mother turns to Jesus because of his past resourcefulness. But Jesus responds to her with a rebuke. They have different agendas on their minds. Mary is thinking about the feast at hand but Jesus is focussed on a greater feast, the messianic feast that was promised to God’s people.

Throughout his entire ministry Jesus had the cross on his mind. Everything that he did must be seen in light of this. Jesus responds to his mother by saying, “my hour has not yet come.” His ‘hour’ was the time of his crucifixion when he would bear the wrath of his heavenly Father. Jesus would be nailed to a cross so that those whom he called to himself might have life, the life of the age to come (i.e. eternal life); we might say that the cross is the entrance-way into the messianic feast.

In a culture where satisfaction and delight are things that are earnestly sought after through drugs and alcohol Christ offers the world true everlasting joy and pleasure. The world knows it wants something but it looks in all the wrong places. Jesus says, “Come to me!” He is “the way, the truth and the life.” Jesus offers us the true wine, the true life. The alcoholism of our age is a tragedy but we can point people to the risen saviour who, by virtue of his death and resurrection, makes the messianic feast available to all who come to him in repentance and faith.

10 Things Part 8: Justification

The other night my wife and I were lying in bed talking about our frustration with the fact that sometimes we feel so emotionally disengaged from God. It can seem really messed up sometimes because we are the very ones who God has chosen to save and yet we feel like it’s nothing.

Thoughts like these inevitably lead to imagining what God’s response will be like in the future judgment. “Look at all I’ve done for you and yet it means nothing to you!” However, this isn’t the God we serve. Yahweh is a God of unimaginable underserved grace. So how can we find confidence for the last day even though we can be so shallow in the present? The answer is, of course, Jesus!

In the apostle Paul’s day people looked to different things, “I’m Jewish, I’m circumcised” or “We have the law and follow it!” But Paul always says that trusting in those things is useless. They only bring God’s judgment as the past has shown over and over (i.e. the exile). But God has remained faithful to his promises to Abraham that one day he would, through him, bless many nations.

The promise today is that through Christ we become part of his true covenant family, the one’s who are ‘righteoused’. So when God looks at those who put their trust in Christ’s faithfulness, not their own faithlessness, then he declares them righteous, not guilty. And what’s even greater is the fact that we don’t have to wait until the end wondering if we will be justified. God makes this declaration in the present by virtue of Christ’s death and resurrection and the Christian’s unity to him. Just as Jesus was declared to be in the right when God raised him from the dead so does he of all those who are in Christ.

My Girls and My Cryptic Wife

I am a daydreamer. And as such I frequently think of what it would be like if God so desired to bless me with daughters one day. Well in light of these 'dreams' I thought these lyrics by Animal Collective were pretty cool. Of course I would also want my daughter's to love Jesus!

"Is it much to admit I need
A solid soul and the blood I bleed
With a little girl, and by my spouse
I only want a proper house

I don't care for fancy things
Or to take part in a precious race
And children cry for the one who has
A real big heart and a father's grace

I don't mean to seem like I care about material things like a social status
I just want four walls and adobe slabs for my girls"

On another note. Last night I had this conversation with my wife as we we're driving home.

Nick: Hmmmm what does 'cryptic' mean?
Alicia: I know what it means; but I am not really good at defining things.
Nick: Ok...
Alicia: No, like I can use it in a sentence; like, "Man...that was cryptic"

Here's Dictionary.com's defintion:

1. mysterious in meaning; puzzling; ambiguous: a cryptic message.
2. abrupt; terse; short: a cryptic note.
3. secret; occult: a cryptic writing.
4. involving or using cipher, code, etc.
5. Zoology. fitted for concealing; serving to camouflage.
–noun 6. a cryptogram, esp. one designed as a puzzle.

Jonathan Edwards on the Resurrection and Justification

I was just browsing through Adrian Warnock's blog and found this great quote from Jonathan Edwards on the Resurrection of Jesus and Justification:

So Christ, our second surety (in whose justification all whose surety he is, are virtually justified), was not justified till he had done the work the Father had appointed him, and kept the Father's commandments through all trials, and then in his resurrection he was justified. When he had been put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit, 1 Peter 3:18 , then he that was manifest in the flesh was justified in the Spirit, 1 Timothy 3:16 . But God, when he justified him in raising him from the dead, did not only release him from his humiliation for sin, and acquit him from any further suffering or abasement for it, but admitted him to that eternal and immortal life, and to the beginning of that exaltation that was the reward of what he had done.And indeed the justification of a believer is no other than his being admitted to communion in the justification of this head and surety of all believers: for as Christ suffered the punishment of sin, not as a private person, but as our surety. So when after this suffering he was raised from the dead, he was therein justified, not as a private person, but as the surety and representative of all that should believe in him. So that he was raised again not only for his own, but also for our justification, according to the apostle, Romans 4:25 , "Who was delivered for our offenses, and raised again for our justification." And therefore it is that the apostle says, as he does in Romans 8:34 , "Who is he that condemneth? It is Christ that died, yea rather, that is risen