Reading Wright (What Saint Paul Really Said-WSPRS) on page 132, I think he is saying that the Jews believe that the present identification of their future vindication or justification as God's people would be the works of the law, the badge of their membership whereas for Paul, it is the confession of our faith in Christ Jesus. I am not sure how Dunn reads this but I can check it out later. I think we can use the analogy of the parole system (I do not know much about it actually).
When the judge has pronounced the judgement on the offender that he is free from the offence, the offender will be asked to live his life with the restrain of constantly reporting to the parole officer who will determine whether the offender has followed the 'terms of release'. I think it describes well how we are now justified by faith, released from the bondage of sin in certain ways, but we still need to live under the supervision of our parole officer, the Holy Spirit, before finally we are judged at the end of our parole on whether we have lived according to the judgement and requirements made earlier by the Lord when we first believed.
When the judge has pronounced the judgement on the offender that he is free from the offence, the offender will be asked to live his life with the restrain of constantly reporting to the parole officer who will determine whether the offender has followed the 'terms of release'. I think it describes well how we are now justified by faith, released from the bondage of sin in certain ways, but we still need to live under the supervision of our parole officer, the Holy Spirit, before finally we are judged at the end of our parole on whether we have lived according to the judgement and requirements made earlier by the Lord when we first believed.
Comments
Dear Bro. Israel,
I don't think this accurately sums up the Protestant or evangelical understanding of justification. The terms of our release - all of them - have been completely fulfilled by Our Lord and Saviour Christ. We are not on parole, but completely free.
Having said this, your articulation above definitely accurately sums up Wright's teaching on justification which is neither biblical nor evangelical, notwithstanding that his works can be read with profit, as is the case.
I wasn't summing up the Protestant or evangelical understanding of justification. I do not have much background in systematic theology.
I was just working on a personal understanding of Wright's writing on this matter while having a conversation with a student from STM. However, I do not think that his approach is not biblical though it may differ from the norm.
From my personal reading, I tend to agree with him more because I am by discipline trained in discourse analysis. Though I do not read Greek nor Aramaic, I do perform textual analysis of the bible based on my training in the field of discourse analysis. This is how I build up my understanding of the texts in the Bible.
If I may, I would personally encourage you to read Wright with a more critical perspective. Wright's articulation of justification is a novelty. I believe the balance between church tradition (what the people of God has always believe) and individual scholarship has been lost in the NPP. There must not only be formal continuity but material continuity as well. The beliefs of the Church is not shaped by scholarship alone but in conjunction with the rest of the Church.
For Wright to say that final justification is based on a "Spirit-driven life" is simply not Protestant, evangelical or Reformed, contrary to his claims. In fact, such a view is closer to Rome, if at all. And actually the idea that salvation is conditioned by monergism initially and synergism finally is precisely the heresy which St. Paul condemned in Galatians, which heresy has its roots in one way or another in the variegated nomistic understandings.
Thanks for the advise. Actually, I am critical of Wright. I could accept the things he said about Jesus very well but I have always been struggling with his views on Paul, especially justification.
Due to my training in linguistics, it has been ingrained in me that I always look at the data first before concluding anything. Therefore, irregardless of what Wright or Dunn or Reformed Theology say, I will always go back to the scriptures to see whether it makes sense. I do understand that my interpretation will be limited to my understanding of English (I do not read Greek nor Aramaic, so my only source of data is the English bible), the discourse analysis I employ and the contextual knowledge I get from literature. After some struggle, up till now, I still find Wright's writing on Paul acceptable, if not biblical (based on my own subjective analysis).
Maybe I am wrong to say this, I believe that there is room for a critical examination of Protestant, evangelical and Reformed traditions just as Luther and Calvin did in their days on the traditions of Roman Catholicism. I remember reading an author on church history who wrote that Iranaeus in his passionate struggle against Gnostic heresies subscribed to the principle that it is because of traditions we know that the 4 gospels are apostolic. And this has been the foundation for Roman Catholicism to claim authority in all areas of spiritual life, that is until Luther.
I do believe there is a need to avoid making the same mistake of hanging on to dogmatic traditions without reviewing whether such traditions are scriptural.