a humble brother's question and my response

First, let me say that I remain encouraged through your music Voice. The Truth of GOD'S WORD spills from your albums with practical simplicity. I must confess, I do not have your initial two albums. In the earlier days of my walk, I found your music exuded a significant amount of "happiness" and "joy" that I myself was not used to (hopefully this is not offensive, but it would take MANY more emails to explain. Suffice to say, with a "similar" background to yourself, the transition into joy and light, was difficult after so many years in darkness and sorrow). As time passed, and the light of CHRIST began to shine in, darkness was slowly thrust out. So when the time came for that joyous chorus (like on "Unstoppable"), the Process of the Pardon emerged! Anyway, I know your time if limited, with "Santiago" and "Mrs Betsy Allen," so let me cut to it. I enjoy your music brother, and have been INSTRUCTED on the Pardon, specifically with the jewels from Dr. Grudem, Duncan, and even Imago Dei (what's that, "non-posse-bacardi"????)

My question is in regards to NT Wright's New Perspective. I will confess I am largely unlearned in the area. I have read several articles by Wright, and glanced at the introduction to Piper on Justification (where he credits NT Wright as a tremendous Biblical Scholar). I have had several discussions with a few brothers from Westminster in Philly, some of whom acknowledge Wright to be amongst their favorite scholars. This is to say nothing of his interpretation of Justification. My question is that you steadfastly refute Mr. Wright's position as being heresy. I know you are in (I think you refer to it as) Pastor's College, thus I give great deference to your study on the matter. But I been skimming the surface on modern changes and transitions in Biblical Scholarship (see Enns on "Inspiration and Incarnation" for example), and it seems ("seems" brother), there is room (not necessarily with Wright and Enns) for correction on our understanding of "certain" things in comparison to our understanding several hundred years ago. I guess my question is how did you come to your position against Wright with such steadfastness? Again brother, I do not assert you are wrong (for I continue to hold to the traditional understanding of Justification, lest I find my Salvation is LOST!), I just want to understand how you reached your position bro, that's all. Take your time in response Voice, I know your labors are many.

"A Theist" is nice so far. Favorite track (From an emcee perspective, thus far) is Uni-verse! Hope all is well with you brother.

nate

My response:

Nate,
Sorry it took so long for me to respond to this. I set it in my email group and I lost it or something to that effect. In any case I appreciate your humble question and the subsequent follow up email and encouragements. I hope I can answer your question with clarity although I must admit there are plenty of other people (Jon Piper, Ligon Duncan among others) who have done a fine job bringing discernment to this issue. If you haven’t I would encourage you to get some of there materials to see what those who actually have something worthwhile to say about it. I will also avoid commenting on the scholarship of Wright but will say that yes in many areas he has proven to be an excellent scholar of the bible. However, he is not infallible and in his position on Justification, I have to say his infallibility is apparent =)

In answering a question like this Nate I have to be honest and say that most of what we know and believe today we stand on the shoulders of the great saints that preceded us. What I offer is no new insight into scripture or some how I have come to this position on my own as if some angel revealed things to me about Justification that shape my “perspective.” Having said this I will try to answer your question. This will be a non-scholar answer to by the way. Not that I could give a scholar answer lol.

One of the main reasons I disagree with Wright is that this position would not have been a position that has historically been in the church as a matter of question. As far back as we can know this “new” perspective is in fact that, new. I find it hard to believe that the further we move away from the original days of biblical writings that we come into more clarity on those writings. Wright’s interpretation of the Greek word for Justification is not used in the way that he describes in most texts that use this word. The connection that the word makes to justification is not an issue of family but an issue of position. At least that is what everyone (that we, including Wright, have sided with) who has weighed in on this issue throughout church history has seen Justification as a legal declaration from God not a term referring to family. I find it hard to believe that in all history this has not been put out there, especially by all those who have studied this intently.

Another reason I disagree with this position is because of the implication of this position. If this is true (new perspective) then a person’s standing before God isn’t guaranteed by God and therefore becomes about works to assure one of salvation where the scripture speak so vehemently against works as earning salvation. This new perspective gets down to the issue of how can I be sure I am saved, being “a member of God’s family” doesn’t indicate that soteriological implications are present. Sadducee’s and Pharisee’s were also a part of God’s family as in that they were the chosen people by God. People weren’t struggling with being a member of a family in second temple Judaism. Yes people wanted to worship in the temple and were kept out but the issue was acceptance by God and worship of God. They all knew they were “part of the family.” If this perspective is true then one’s own assurance seems to not be certain which makes us Neo-Judaizers in trying to attain certainty in our salvation.

Lastly, I think this new perspective doesn’t line up with the totality of scripture. While the Pauline epistles offer the most data on this issue other aspects of scripture highlight the work of God and what makes us acceptable to Him.

Christ’s atoning death definitively secures our forgiveness for sins past, present and future.

1. “But when Christ had offered for all time a single sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God… For by a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are being sanctified.” (Hebrews 10:12,14)
2. “For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit,” 1 Peter 3:18
3. God not only removes our sins (Ps. 103:12) leaving us “neutral” before God, but he also credits us with a perfect righteousness (Is. 61:10, Rom. 4:3)
   

Again brother there is so much to say here. This was a little answer to a big question. I appreciate your heart man and I hope that you continue to be encouraged in Christ and in your justification!