We are working our way through Tom Wright's new book, Justification: God's Plan & Paul's Vision
. The book purports to be a response to John Piper's The Future of Justification, but it is far more than that: it is a brilliant sketch of Wright's own views.Chp 4 opens with a question that is second to none in this debate: "What is the question to which the 'doctrine of justification' is the answer?" He then moves to Alister McGrath's famous study on the history of what justification means (Iustitia Dei: A History of the Christian Doctrine of Justification
), and makes three points:1. McGrath distinguishes "concept" from "doctrine": the former refers to the biblical ideas and the latter to how that idea has developed into a full-scale, centralized doctrine in the Church, esp after Luther. [It makes me think Wright should have had "concept" at the top of this chp.]
2. McGrath says the "doctrine" has gone well beyond what is found in the Bible, especially as taught by Paul.
3. McGrath says the "doctrine" still has much value.
Wright's observations about this shift from the biblical "concept" to the Church's "doctrine": those who read the "concept" in light of the "doctrine" will misread Scripture's concepts, will not see Scripture's points, and will give biblical warrant to "doctrines" because of the above two. This is the problem of method, the problem of reading back into the NT what was framed much later by Luther (and less so by Calvin).
In the history of the Church, particularly the Lutheran and Reformed branches, justification covers it all -- and McGrath's books show just this: it has come to mean the entire picture of God's reconciling action toward the human race.
Wright sets the tone: The dikaios root "does not denote that entire sequence of thought" but instead it denotes "one specific aspect of or moment within that sequence of thought" (87). Making it the whole and the center is like making a steering wheel the whole of a car.
Wright's definition now: Righteousness "denotes the status that someone has when the court has found in their favor" (90). It does not denote the moral character they are then assumed to have or the moral behavior they have demonstrated which has earned them the verdict. The whole world is in the dock and that means justification means acquittal and forgiveness. It does not mean "make righteous" as if it meant transformation of character. Therefore, it refers to a declaration that gives someone a status.
Wright argues that Piper sees justification in moral terms -- that Christ's righteousness is imputed to someone. But righteousness in Paul is not about morality but about status.
Wright sets the tone: The dikaios root "does not denote that entire sequence of thought" but instead it denotes "one specific aspect of or moment within that sequence of thought" (87). Making it the whole and the center is like making a steering wheel the whole of a car.
Wright's definition now: Righteousness "denotes the status that someone has when the court has found in their favor" (90). It does not denote the moral character they are then assumed to have or the moral behavior they have demonstrated which has earned them the verdict. The whole world is in the dock and that means justification means acquittal and forgiveness. It does not mean "make righteous" as if it meant transformation of character. Therefore, it refers to a declaration that gives someone a status.
Wright argues that Piper sees justification in moral terms -- that Christ's righteousness is imputed to someone. But righteousness in Paul is not about morality but about status.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
Yes, I agree that all our language falls short and we shouldn't be too rigid. That's why I think that "imputation" is really not the point of 2Cor5.21- it's another one of those "in Christ" places that I think is about much, much more than "what God has done for me"- though I find my place within it, the individual's place is not the focus. Rather, we (collective, not individual) have become the demonstration (eikon, if you will) of the reality of God's covenant faithfulness. I think all of Paul "holds together" much better with the focus on God's people (collective) being *in Christ* and how Paul is trying to describe what that means, rather than anything being "imputed" to the individual- God's righteousness, or anything else.
We may have to agree to disagree. That's ok, but disagree with an understanding of Wright, looking at things through his categories.
Dana
Excellent, helpful stuff here, Scot. I really look forward to getting and reading this book. It did look exceptional, the day I picked it up and was able to spot read here and there.
In 'What Saint Paul Really Said', Wright (p.101) distinguishes between imputed righteousness and imparted righteousness, both being
'righteousness' given to humans as righteous standing 'from God'. He explains further (p.102) 'imputed' is "'reckoned' to be theirs,
almost as a legal fiction?", and 'imparted' is "an actual entity or property, given by God". Why does Wright now argue about 'imputed'
as if it is 'imparted' when he discusses these issues? Or have I got it wrong what he is saying, then and now?
Dana (#18),
You're preachin' to the justified here. I'm on board with Wright's view that "in Christ" is the key concept in most of Paul's writings; the reality to which most of the old perspective discussion of imputation points.
My point is much more modest: Put aside what our personal views are on 2 Cor. 5:21 for the moment: Isn't it at least possible for someone to believe all of Wright's key points and think that that one verse has imputation overtones? It doesn't undercut any of his key points, including the "in Christ" point. If you want a middle ground, its there.
Although it is debatable, I personally think Wright is most likely correct about 2 Cor. 5:21. But that is not my point.
Sure, it's possible. But building theology/doctrine on one verse is pretty shaky.
Dana
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.