'Justification by Faith' explained with NT Wright
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 16 ก.ค. 2024
- Tom 'NT' Wright answers listeners questions on some of the the Apostle Paul's most misinterpreted scriptures in the book of Romans and Galatians.
#debate #questions #tomwright #ntwright #justification #theology #doctrine
SOCIAL LINKS:
Twitter: / unbelievablefe
Facebook: / / premierunbelievable
Instagram: / / premierunbelievable
Tik Tok: / / premier.unbelievable
Ask NT Wright Anything Podcast
The show that connects you to NT (Tom) Wright’s thoughts and theology through your questions. Produced by Premier Unbelievable in partnership with SPCK and NTWrightOnline.
About NT (Tom) Wright: Tom Wright is one of the world’s leading New Testament scholars and the author of numerous books including Surprised by Hope, The Day The Revolution Began, Paul: A Biography and most recently Jesus and the Powers. He will be on the Unbelievable show talking about this very soon. Tom Wright is senior research fellow at Wycliffe Hall, University of Oxford. Wright is ordained in the Church of England and, among other roles, served as Bishop of Durham between 2003 - 2010. He is much in demand as a lecturer around the world and the author for the bestselling For Everyone commentary series and the New Testament For Everyone Bible translation.
• Subscribe to the Unbelievable? podcast: pod.link/267142101
• Support us: www.premierunbelievable.com/d...
![[TH] VCT Pacific Stage 2 - Playoffs Day 3 // DRX vs GEN | PRX vs TLN](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/CWM1Q-2-o3M/mqdefault.jpg)
We need to address what questions we bring to the text and ask ourselves what questions is the text trying to answer. The ancient Israelites and first century Jews were not concerned about “how do I go to heaven?” They were focused on God as King and restoration of the whole earth and humanity as His image bearers. It then becomes easier to see the discussion around the Greek and Hebrew words translated so often as faith being more commonly understood as faithfulness or loyalty or allegiance. Those concepts go very nicely with the image of God as King, as having a kingdom, He has messengers that spread the good news (a technical term for when a king has a child, comes to the throne, wins a great battle). You are not saved by believing something to be true, you are in God kingdom by being a loyal subject to His commands and trusting in Him beyond what you may see and feel in this life.
This is a powerful and meaningful difference that have major knock on effects for how we live our lives.
Am I the only one who really likes Tom Wright but actually thinks he's sort of bad at clearly explaining things out loud? He has British elegance in speech but it's often ten levels of metaphors and cute innuendo.
I’m with you. His explanation of justification isn’t as different as he’s making out compared to most sound doctrine explanations
I had the same impression as you when I first read a book of him. However, after a while, after reading many of his books I kind of got used to how he goes over the subjects. Perhaps we're expecting that he draws it out for us, but it's not actually that simple. Most of the times, it's enough that he has to deconstruct the hegemonic traditional perspectives and doctrines. It takes time, effort, thinking and so on. Wright is not the guy to learn from if you are not willing to think for yourself rather than waiting him to speak out loud "yes" or "no", "black" or "white". It's a little more complicated than that.
There are three witnesses to our faith, and three jurisdictions one for each witness, and atonement comes by Triple Justification; in baptism, sanctification and judgement.
I like where Wright goes on this. To add to the discussion, shouldn't we admit that "justification by faith" is something of an oxymoron? Justification as we think of it is all about reason or law. Faith, by definition, requires no real justification.
So when Paul ends up arguing justification through law against grace through faith, he's really defining the difference between two dynamics.
Being justified by the Father is baptism into the church and covenant, it is not salvation as atonement is a promise for those sanctified in the church.
It's often overlooked that a ministry of the cross, of the gospel, is a breaking down of the middle wall between Jew and Gentile. Eph 2v14
So wait, if justification is not about how to get to heaven, then how does one get to heaven?
It’s an unnecessary disjunction. Confessing Jesus as King, should contain faith/trust in God’a undeserved grace, which results in loyal obedience, and then of course the end game is resurrection in this renewed creation.
The emphasis on resurrection instead of the immediate state (heaven) is often treated as a rejection of traditional justification views, which it isn’t, it’s just a proper understanding of the resurrection.
Issues of Paul’s meaning of justification and moral work or just changes in the requirement of specific sign works that indicate covenant membership (baptism vs. circumcision and Sabbath, etc.) is a different question. But unfortunately they get wrapped up together.
@@jrhemmerich
You’re quite the presuppositionalist. Pick one and defend it without using your book.
@@mr.c2485, the above discussion, so far as I know, is an inter-Christian debate, so it’s quite natural to use the Bible to determine the Bible’s message.
Everyone has certain presuppositions the question is are they helpful in explaining the basic questions of life.
Even if one doesn’t believe the Bible one should be interested in what it has to say, so as to determine it’s veracity.
You should read it, smart people do ;).
No one is fooled by this. You cannot give an ecclesiastical answer to a question about salvation. Simply ignore NT Wright when it comes to the Pauline corpus.
Of course we can. All the hebrew and jewish traditions allow us to do that. The tradition is all about God's alliance with his people. All about the people of covenant. Salvation is directly connected to these ideas. God's promise of salvation by new creation when God will redeem his people and reconciliate with them. That's why an ecclesiastical answer makes a lot of sense. Eklesia is the new testament language for the people of the covenant in the old testament.
Justified by a letter Paul didn’t write. Sounds about right. Whether the bible is true or not, the idea that you are forgiven on the basis of what you believe & condemned if you don’t believe, is vile. The God of the bible is a monster
They call me crazy when I say something like that "have you ever really read the bible?" "Did you pay attention on what you read?" "If you carefully analyze this God in the bible you'll be scared".
On one hand, if we consider bible as a historic book, and analyze it using scientific methods, we can clearly see how "god" is a projection of whoever writtes about it as in every religion.
However, on the other hand, we live in a theologic world. I have no gain in questioning their god, or the scripture. I feel like the best we can do is to discuss "god" using their epistemology, but questioning their viewpoint.
It's sad having to lower the level if discussion, but...
NT Wright...the guy that doesn't believe in penal substitution..heretic.
I have my strong disagreements with Rev. Wright, but he actually doesn’t deny PSA-he relocated the passages that support it from Romans 3 to Romans 8 (see the Jesus Revolution). He could be more direct about it, and he makes it sound like he is critical of the typical understanding, but he actually does hold to PSA in that work, and I don’t think he has ever retracted those arguments.
Wright has been consistent in affirming a form of Penal Substitution, as has been said its in many of his earlier works ("The Day the Revolution Began", "Surprised by Hope"), but also appears in his more recent works ("Into the Heart of Romans"). What Wright is pushing against is two things: the first being a position which believes that salvation is solely Penal Substitution, and not recognising the fullness of the accounts of Christ's Atonement in the Gospels and Paul; the second being the idea that Christ was seen as a sinner by God and God just wanted to punish Jesus like some pagan Deity. Rather Christ accepts the penalty of sin, not the sin, on our behalf - hence why Christ "became sin" and not a sinner, He accepted the result of it
Bearing false witness?!
@@jmk7423 if that's the case why does he now also dismiss the doctrine of hell? Look it up. He does, he believes all non believers will simply cease to exist in God's image. Hence a form of annihilation. Sorry, but I won't listen to the man.
@@kultan2000 you look up what he believes yourself. I think he is a wolf in sheep's clothing.
This man NEVER gives a clear answer. He purposefully obfuscates the truth with his rhetoric.