More Thoughts on Wright, Justification

So, I have been thinking a good deal about the whole N.T. Wright/Doctrine of Justification bit since my post last Friday. My understanding is so limited I am tempted not to go there, but I will anyway.

Watch this video of Bishop Wright discussing his book, Justification.

Alright. A couple of thoughts.

Firstly, Bishop Wright says, when discussing Justification, Paul is not asking "How can you get enough righteousness so that when God looks at you he'll be happy with you," but rather "How can you be sure that you are a member of God's people, that your sins are forgiven, and that, therefore, you are part of the covenant purposes of God which.... have been the way in which God has been addressing and rescuing the world." Are these questions at odds? They seem to be working on two different levels. The unity that Christ speaks of in John 17 is one that is experienced on the basis of the imputed righteousness of Christ, but also answers questions regarding membership into the people of God. It may be true that Paul, when corresponding with various churches and people, is most immediately addressing the latter question, but that does not mean that the first question is not at all addressed.

Secondly, the Reformation may have defined Justification by asking the first question Wright poses. But Scripture still answers the question, "How am I declared righteous before a Holy God when my good works are filthy rags and my nature is totally depraved," which is how I would rephrase the first question. Wright seems to attempt to skew the question a bit by framing the Reformation understanding of righteousness as a "moral quality or virtue" (which some may have seen it as, but certainly not Luther, Calvin, or other Reformation leaders). However, just because the question does not show up in this form until a millennium-and-a-half after Paul writes his letters does not mean Scripture does not address it. In fact, the Bible addresses Justification from the perspective of the first question much more exhaustively then, say, the Trinity, which was not really on anyone's radar until the forth century.

I by no means have any answers about this yet and there is a good chance that all Bishop Wright said went directly over my head and I missed the point entirely. Nevertheless, I will continue to investigate. What this video did was prove to me that Bishop Wright has more convincing to do if he plans on changing the definition of Justification.

I guess the next step is to read his book, which, by the looks of things, will not be for a good while.