N. T. Wright on Paul and the Faithfulness of God: A Conversation with Richard B. Hays
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 26 ส.ค. 2024
- N. T. Wright talks with Richard B. Hays and Michael J. Gorman about his new book and the task and challenge of understanding what Paul has to say about justification and Spirit in Galatians 2 and Romans 8. To assist your students, we also developed a discussion guide for this video. To download the discussion guide, visit bit.ly/18qgFyO
![[UNCUT] The Loyal Pin ปิ่นภักดิ์ EP.4 (4/4)](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/d3l5rxl5CVo/mqdefault.jpg)
Thank you all for this very inspiring conversation. It makes me want to revisit Paul’s writing again from the beginning. I get the sense that something Paul is trying to express here has not been worked out for myself and my own understanding.
I'm happy to listen to this and to see three excellent scholars together in a discussion which is really important. Thanks for ng
But the catholic isnt even a christian.. should we have table fellowship with.
Oh my heavens!! the knowledge in this video, who would've thought that psalm 8 and 2 is echoed in Romans 8? brilliant!!
this is rich. Hays and Wright with an open text and going at it. This is great.
I see two Reformed theologians having a very subdued theological argument with Bibles open in front of them, in inimical Reformed style. Also, they don't disagree on much.
It's always a treat to have both Richard Hays and Tom Wright in one sitting. Does anyone have an insight into the history of this bromance? :)
So glad these men are my brothers in Christ!
Amen!
Two very well read folks talking about their craft is always a treat - even more so when the craft is the content of Gods good truth.
All of this knowledge in 35 minutes
I was surprised to find out that Galatians 3:22 in most translations does not say Faith of Jesus Christ, it says Faith in Jesus Christ, I would not have picked this up if not for this discussion
Absolutely brilliant. Thank you, gentlemen!
Richard Hayes reminds me of Jeff Bridges
I love their expounding the original Greek. I don't need to agree with every word to appreciate the diligence.
respected scholars
Insightful discussions
God loves us and gives His Son. Jesus is faithful to the Father by loving us. We put our faith in the Father's Love towards us expressed in Christ dying for us. The Spirit is given to us to remind us of God's love for us but also for the whole world. The Spirit empowers us to love as He loves. A person can serve others out of fear, like a slave but you are no longer a slave if you serve out of love.
This was awesome, I love NT!
This was much more fruitful than their panel discussion at Duke.
Bryson Townsend hi. I have just found this discussion and wow talk about chalk and cheese. Bishop Wright was willing to challenge scripture with an open mind, take on established readings, which by the way are only 'spun' to placate any dissension among the ranks. Richard Hays was so defensive and trying to dampen investigation, four points he wanted to give his context to override the obvious, the meat of what Paul is saying is that we must seek to be justified by Christ. He is our judge, it is our faith (trust and obedience) in Christ that is in scripture, not Christ's faithfulness to us.
Sorry to burden you, but you impliedly a familiarity with the protagonists, and I wondered if you noticed the same establishment/anti establishment stances before?
Simon Skinner Interesting take. A lot of people are defensive or even offensive when they interact with Wright but I thought Hays was pleasant about it. Douglas Campbell wasn’t.
Bryson Townsend well of course Richard Hays falls quickly into Defensive Offensive from personal insecurity. The whole Reformation is a building without foundation, if you consider the scriptures foundation, as I do. Where is obedience, perseverance, dead to sin etc. Luther was obsessive about eternal security, he made up a completely obedience free, yet even Paul tells us he has righteousness by faith through Christ. How did he obtain his own righteousness, trust and obey. If Christ is in you, how can you sin or not do good works? So sad.
Simon Skinner You a Roman Catholic or something? Why so much hostility to the Reformation?
Bryson Townsend you raise an interesting point, the Reformation was intended to reform the RCC, yet the indulgences remained and the Reformers are cursed. My goal is ecumenism and I intend this to based on scripture, Sola Scriptura but Totam Scripturam, all of scripture not soundbites. I was brought up C of E here in England.
I am independent and admire Bishop Wright's independent thinking. It is the weakness of the Reformers doctrine on salvation that encourages us to examine it more closely. The only way to find the truth is to falsify any theories we have about it, that is all denominational doctrines, and the one faith that was taught will be found. I of course believe I have it. We are saved by grace but not by God's grace alone, we are justified by God for faith in Christ, and justified by the grace of Christ for righteousness through faith in him. Double justification. Only half of our salvation was due to the cross, the power of the resurrection and his righteousness is the rest, as Jesus "was delivered for offences, and raised again for our justification", as Romans 4:25.
Is it just me or does this video seem sped up?
Great talk Guys. Love you all. wheeewww... it might require only a true gentile(wisdom seeker) to understand Paul. Hehehehe
Ahh these scholars... I wish they could at least start by defining what they mean by “justification”... at least some basic common ground understanding or definition before they run off to build on this elusive idea of it.. not all of us are scholars who come at it from a shared understanding
read PFG, Wright does like 150 pages on justification
It’s like N.T. Is saying a lot but he’s not even trying to make any real sense out of what he’s saying. He speaks very fast and it’s hard to grab it all when he’s moving all over like he does. It’s like a guy who wants you to believe he’s a smart guy when he’s not.
Y'all could make your case far more clearly if when you had wondered why Paul consistently uses the genitive case in every example you give of his statements about faith in or faith of or faithfulness of God, you had recognized that the ablative case looks grammatically just like the genitive case in Koine Greek, though it retains its own meaning, and in fact half the examples I found of its use were written by Saint Paul. Some of them specifically about faith! He uses it constantly, especially when he wants to convey a complex relationship involving something that people have or need to have that originates with God, like maybe, faith!
Well, maybe. While
The ablative case intends to signify a relation between two nouns, such that one of them "comes from" or "stems from" another. Eg, the faith that people need to have, or have, comes from Jesus Christ.
Failure to recognize that has NT Wright inventing whole new noun forms of faith, like faithfulness, that just don't seem to be supported by the meaning and usage of pistis, which seems to always means faith each and everywhere it is used all over the New Testament. Faithfulness in Greek has the same root but it's a different word. Or faithful is. If it were converted into a noun I presume it would keep its longer form. I gather that a single reference document came up with six cases in the entire scriptures where pistis would seem to mean faithfulness. In his book, Wright states that pistis can mean faith or faithfulness, and leaves it at that. It isn't convincing.
Well, maybe. Hays tells us he atleast noticed the genitive form of pistis - pisteo. N.T. Wright consistently mispells it as pistis, throughout his entire book. He gives Jesus Christ the genitive forms, but in the interlinear all three words take the genitive. And he mistranslates the word ek, which atleast in context should mean from or something like it.
Hays thinks more clearly, but then he mangles it. He tells us the form we see of pistis, specifically pisteo, is interesting, but he never tells us exactly what is interesting about it, and therein lies the whole story. Did he realize this is the ablative? He seems to think it means what it means if it were the ablative, but, he never mentions it, and because he gives us no underlying logic to how he comes to conclude what he does, he isn't perfectly convincing. Both seem to have some grasp of a relational meaning in the fact that Romans clearly communicates that the faith comes from God whose obedience to God's will brings forth a response of faith from people, which by itself could account for the weird grammar, as that could be all it means.
I'd overlook the mistakes in someone else, but these are first class New Testament scholars, who should have advanced knowledge of Greek, and should have seen these things immediately, and explained them clearly.
I must say, that NT Wright's view that St. Paul's concern for salvation and his theology of how we are saved is strictly about the salvation of collective groups like Jews and Pagans, must be seen in light of his membership in the higher ranks of the British upper classes. He was one of the two head bishops of the Church of England. The House of Bishops in 2002 published a document on human sexuality, primarily about homosexuality, addressed to the Anglican churches of Canada and the United States, both of which overthrew England's ability to tell them what to do centuries ago, but apparently some people on both sides of the Atlantic have never realized that. The document stated some gems. One of them was that people on both sides of that issue need to stop randomely substituting ideas into sentences, and listen to their elders and betters - telling them to think absolutely nothing. The rest of the document was a jumble of paired paragraphs expressing opposite views on sexuality and on homosexuality. For instance, sexuality is a gift from God, but if it is, it's a very dangerous one. Then, the House of Bishops ordered clergy of the Church of England who are legally married to members of their own sex, to tell their bishops they don't sleep together, whether that is the truth or not being entirely irrelevant. The British aristocracy is stuck in a medieval society where people only thought of themselves as members of groups, and did not think for themselves, or about themselves. Max Weber would call that pure corruption by definition. This bleep dares to talk to us about who is affected by God's promises of salvation? Well of course, it's not as if we have brains.
That was the beginning of my becoming a Lutheran. Whatever one might say about Luther's theology, they disagree on critical issues, like, whether the world was created in 7 days, and still work together. The church was founded by a man who stood on conscience under penalty of death. "I can do no other". I think it is safe to say that NT Wright has no concept of what an individual conscience is, and has never thought for himself about anything, and it is definitely safe to say that concerns about the individual fate of his own immortal soul do not keep him awake at night. That man is going to be REALLY startled when he dies. I don't know if I'm going to heaven or hell, but I definitely want to be there to see what happens to N.T. Wright, partly because N.T. Wright himself doesn't even care.
Personally I find it unreasonable to think that large collectivities of people can trust God to save them, and individual people can't. Theologians have argued with Wright and his ilk, that, for instance, how is Paul saying Abraham's faith was reckoned to him as righteousness, which then won all future members of the human race the collective promise of salvation, except as an individual? In the story, Abraham's faith in God was his own, and he came to it all by himself, and as I recall he negotiated his way in a culture where no one else shared his beliefs. While Luther might have misunderstood passages that really said that people were saved through a relational sort of faith granted to them by God and collectivities were the subject of discussion, to mean that he as a person is saved by faith in Christ, I don't think he can be said to have been wrong in his ultimate conclusion, especially as he would pretty much agree with everything ELSE Romans has to say. He spells it out in his theology of the cross. He especially clearly thinks that human faith is a response to Christ's saving action on the cross, and to God's grace. He doesn't think people are capable of faith on their own; it must exist in relation to God's actions.
If you spend time heresy hunting inside, you will not find time heresy hunting outside- Gresham Machen
N t wright Paul
5:10 (G2:14) - orthopodecy- your feet are not pointed in the right direction.
Which is that faithfulness due to Jesus Christ in the new covenat?.
If we don't explain that faithfulness some could misinterpret it.
I think we could find the answer in Jr 31: 31-34 and in Hebrews 8: 8-12:
8 For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah:
9 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord.
10 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:
11 And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest.
12 For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more.(KJV)
9:30 Hays: I live by faith (en piste) = by the faith of the Son of God. Jesus is the active agent. That act of him giving himself for us is what Paul means by “the faithfulness of Jesus Christ.”
Wright: start with Romans 3:1-2, 21-22. Israel has not been faithful. God is faithful. Jesus is the faithful Israelite (who accomplishes the required faithfulness).
So, our faith is in Christ’s faithfulness to God. We live within the faithfulness of God via Christ.
17:00 Hays: In Gal. 2:16, both concepts are included: “even we also trusted in Jesus Christ for justification”.
Wright: “faithful faithfulness is the badge of Christians.” Our faith is in His faithfulness.
The promise that comes out of Christs faith is given to us. Both Gal. 3:22 and Rom. 3:22.
my goodness that office looks dated
Nathan Soper That is it's charm though .
There are some quesations evryone need to ask them sekfs when it comes to the NPP.
Is this a teaching that i can stand for, is it found in the bible? No, its not. NT Wright now it allso. Becouse many people think they know what NT Wright, J Dunn, C Stendal means.
In the books by NT Wrigt he allways come in the end to one question thats need to nbe solved, at thats the doctrine of justification (if you dont agree, thats fine, i did my doctoir degree about this subjeckt amonmg others and have rean plenty of books about it). The only thing i whant ervybody to think about is if the teachning go along the bible/the word of ouer Lord.
The doctrine of justification by faith alone on which the church stands or falls (Martin Luther) will not ever be a friend to the teaching about NPP. The teachning/doctrine on NPP is the opposite to doctrine of justification by faith.
Read his books and you will see thats he is not so objectic as he claims to be. He cant get around the doctrine of justification by faith. And thats the problem for NPP-likers , that it doesent come togheter, the 2 doctrins. The Doctrine of justification by faith witch the church stand or falls is and will allways be the the foundation for ouer salvation, and by that i mean thats its a biblical truth.
The last question is; is it a heresy? Well, thats depends on what you mean with heresy. The word is not from the begining a chroistian word but we adopt the word and peoples meaning what it means have chanhges over yers and yers. I mean the teachning of NPP i heresy in the olddest meaning, yes its heresy. You can even se in the biible that even the Lord would call it heresy.
Its a pitty that D A Carson or Moule isent in the debate.
Sorry for my english. Im nearlly blind. I hope you will understabd what i mean.
One more thing. NT Wright and J Dunn and others isent the problem; its the theology thats the problem becouse it isent biblica.
You all might have something to say if you were learning from the Holy Spirit. You might like the book- "Religion- The Devil's Best Idea" by David Edwards
Of course you are learning from the Spirit, right?
This is the guy John Piper defends NT Wright who is actually NT Wrong! Phil Johnson called his teaching on Paul heresy. Figures he is teaming up with Catholics smh.
Who made John piper or Phil Johnson the ones who get to declare who is and isn’t heretical? NT Wright simply has a different reading of the text, which if one defends scripture alone is perfectly legitimate. Instead of calling someone a heretic, wouldn’t it make more sense to get together and hash things out. But of course, John Piper isn’t defending scripture so much as he is defending the reformation. The traditions of men smh.
Not just any Tom and Dick, Harry.
Why doesnt someone tied
NT wright down and tell him to stop rambling on... just answer the question and exegete a passage so ppl can see what the text says not his thoughts or history. Iits not about him.. nor his understanding of the themes. Its about exgesis of specific texts. Richard Hays is a better rcommunicator. Whether Wright is correct is too difficult to tie down amongst his rambling.
On a key point Wright is wrong.. faithis not a badge of a Christian.... the presence of the Holy Spirit is the sine non qua of the Christian.. badge if you like. The Spirit comes thru faith in the gospel but its the presence of the Spirit that is the ongoing mafk... not faith which is the means. So be is fundamentallly wrong. Faith is not the evidence of the Spirit..but the cause. I dont think Wright actually understands at a personal level.. he is like a tourist o the texts and guces himself ti isogesis. Richard Hay is thinking what im saying..hes annoyed but because he knows Wright has tbe popular following and most of uou are attracted to the vide o for that reason... he doesnt say as i say.
Wfight is a rambler. Tie him down to a text
Wright has always been a rambler scrambler dabbler kissing like a bandit stealing time underneath the sycamore tree, get up.
@Caratacus the bible isn't simply a historical document..it's requires the Holy Spirit to understand. The role of intellectual investigation is like someone drawing the curtains from a window so the sunlight can come in... it's not to provide the light. ..that's the job of the Holy Spirit who speaks in the scriptures with conviction. NT Wright doesn't express his convictions..but tries to use the historical background to describe his journey in his thinking..that's like describing the curtains. Which is rambling
@Caratacus I don't think you know what your talking about
@Caratacus 2 Timothy 3:16 "God-breathed" 2 Peter 1:21 "moved by the Holy Spirit" 1 Corinthians 2:13 "explaining spiritual things to spiritual people" 1 John 2:27 "anointing teaches you about everything" The same Spirit who wrote the scriptures in history is the same Spirit who enables understanding of it. That Spirit is not some individualistic subjective impersonal mumbo jumbo. The historical background may help in removing some errors in interpretation but it doesn't provide an understanding in itself.
I really don't think you have an understanding.. you sound like you don't understand that the Holy Spirit is a person as much as Jesus is who taught his disciples in history. John 14:26
@Caratacus I borrow an illustration from highly influential writer of the 1800s William Law ..reason will not bring you truth ..only the Spirit does, but where reason comes in is that it can draw the curtains so the light can come in and light the house. Historical investigation is similar to reason, as an understanding of the original languages are. It has it's place.
2 Timothy 2:7 Think over what I say, for the Lord will give you understanding in everything.
Perhaps you need to ask the Spirit to show you. Discernment isn't an individualistic process .. it's tested by others who have the Spirit and lived out in their lives. But without the Spirit there is not real understanding even if the historical investigation is spot on.
NT Wright...polished, suave, saying nothing.
Richard Hays four points are hog-wash. Faith in Christ, is to completely trust and the duty of us to fulfil that trust, not believing what he did for us. We must seek to be justified by Christ by being righteous.
Simon Skinner so it’s about your faith instead of God’s faithfulness
Gary Denton oh yes. If we are trustworthy to God he will be faithful to us. This is the lesson in Romans 4 God and Abraham. God relies on the law of faith, our faith based on our trust in divine promises, the just shall live by faith. "by" is the operative word, that is through the action of, see Hebrews 11: 2-40.
Simon Skinner It is not ourcommitment to him It’s his commitment to us salvation is by grace
Jesus died while were yet sinners the work was already accomplished before we chose to believe
Gary Denton we are saved by grace through faith, faith is commitment as total commitment, the just shall live by faith tells of the commitment. Shall live by is an order to live through the action of faith, obedience to faith.