article on Romans

INtersting article on Romans : http://ntwrightpage.com/Wright_Romans_Theology_Paul.pdf

One of his considerations:

After going round and round this question for two decades, I find myself in the following position, each element of which is of course controversial but which, I think, makes sense in itself and in its exegetical outworkings.The Roman church, initially consisting mostlikely of converted Jews and proselytes within the capital, had been heavily affected by Claudius’s banishment of Jews in 49. Many of the Christians who were left would undoubtedly have been erstwhile godfearers or proselytes. Unlike the Galatian church, these Gentile Christians were not eager to keep the Jewish law, but would be inclined, not least from social pressures within pagan Rome, to distance themselves from it, and to use the opportunity of Claudius’s decree to articulate their identity in non-Jewish terms.When the Jews returned to Rome in 54 upon Claudius’s death, we may properly assume that the (Gentile) church leadership would not exactly be delirious with excitement. Eventhough, as we must stress, not all Jewish Christians were ardent Torah observers, and even though the church was most likely scattered in different small groups around the large city, internal tensions, reflecting at least in part a Jew-Gentile split, were inevitable

from here:  http://ntwrightpage.com/Wright_BR_Shape_Justification.htm

The one true God will finally judge the whole world; on that day, some will be found guilty, and others will be upheld (Romans 2:1-16).God’s vindication of the latter on the last day is his act of final “justification” (Romans 2:13). The word carries overtones of a court of law.

 But not only a court of law.Justification is part of Paul’s picture of the family God promised in his covenant with Abraham.God’s judicial announcement on the last day in favor of certain people is also the declaration that they are part of the family promised to Abraham (Romans 4; see also Galatians 3).This is why law-court imagery is appropriate: When God entered into a covenant with Abraham, the purpose was, and remains, to put the whole world to rights, to deal with sin and death.

 This double declaration (judicial and covenantal) will take the form of an event.God’s people will be resurrected and will share the promised inheritance, the renewed creation (Romans 8).This event, which from one point of view is the “justification” of God’s people (Romans 8:32-34), is from another their “salvation”: their rescue from the corruption of death, which for Paul is the result of sin.The final resurrection is the ultimate rescue, which God promised from the beginning (Romans 4:18-25).

read the article for more details. .....Concerning Baptism he says,

  The event in the present that corresponds to Jesus’ death and resurrection in the past, and the resurrection of all believers in the future, is baptism into Christ (Galatians 3:26-29; Romans 6:2-11).Baptism is not, as some have supposed, a “work” which one “performs” to earn God’s favor.It is, for Paul, the sacrament of God’s free grace. Paul can speak of those who have believed and been baptized as already “saved,” albeit “in hope” (Romans 8:24).

He explains gospel:

 By “the gospel” Paul does not mean “justification by faith.”He means the announcement that the crucified and risen Jesus is Lord.To believe this message—to give believing allegiance to Jesus as Messiah and Lord—is to be justified in the present by faith (whether or not one has even heard of justification by faith).Justification by faith is a second-order doctrine: To believe it is both to have assurance (believing that one will be vindicated on the last day [Romans 5:1-5]) and to know that one belongs in the single family of God, called to share table fellowship with all other believers without distinction (Galatians 2:11-21).But one is not justified by faith by believing in justification by faith, but by believing in Jesus.

He explains justification:

Justification is thus the declaration of God, the just judge, that someone has had their sins forgiven and that they are a member of the covenant family, the family of Abraham.That is what the word means in Paul’s writings.It doesn’t describe how people get into God’s forgiven family; it declares that they are in.That may seem a small distinction, but it is vital.

from this evaluation of Wright found here http://www.readability.com/articles/udikqhrr

 3. What has Wright really meant?

Are the critics right?  The keys to adjudicating this question are Wright’s understanding of the meaning of “righteousness” language in Paul and his understanding of the trial to which justification stands as a verdict.

In his ETS lecture, Wright indicated once more what he has stated many times: in his view, when Paul applies the word “righteousness” to a human being, it means “covenant membership.”  (This is slightly different than when the word is applied to God, in which case it often, but not exclusively, means “covenant faithfulness” according to Wright.)  This definition of “righteousness” should immediately cause us to question the reading that suggests that Wright understands the believer’s Spirit inspired works to be the believer’s “righteousness” in final justification.  If “righteousness” is covenant membership, then righteousness does not and cannot consist in good works themselves, either the believer’s Spirit-inspired works or Christ’s works on the believer’s behalf.

This becomes even clearer when one considers Wright’s understanding of the trial to which justification stands as a verdict.  According to Wright, the question under consideration in the divine courtroom is not whether or not one measures up to God’s moral standards, but rather whether or not one is truly a member of God’s covenant people.  Thus, the trial is meant to determine which people are truly covenant members, and to be justified is to be declared a covenant member.

According to Wright, present justification occurs immediately after conversion.  In Wright’s understanding of conversion, God sends the Spirit to produce faith in one who hears the proclamation of the gospel (Wright thinks that Paul refers to this event with the word “call”).  Thus, faith is the first evidence that one has become a member of God’s covenant people.  Present justification follows immediately.  Present justification is “by faith” because faith in Christ is irrefutable evidence that God has indeed made one a member of his covenant people through the work of his Spirit.  Thus, in Wright’s view, when Paul speaks of present justification by faith, he means God’s declaration that one has been brought into the family of his covenant people.  The evidence that God cites to demonstrate that one has already been brought into covenant membership is the presence of faith.

Wright’s understanding of the function of Spirit-inspired works in final justification is identical to his understanding of the function of faith in present justification.  Just as Spirit-produced faith is the initial sign that God has made one a member of his covenant people, so in final justification, Spirit-produced good works serve as the sign that one was truly a member of God’s covenant people from the point of one’s conversion on.  When Wright has said that good works are the “basis” of the believer’s final justification, he has meant that Spirit-inspired works serve as the evidence that one truly is a covenant member.  They are the “basis” for final justification the same way that a paternity test may serve as the “basis” for the verdict in a paternity lawsuit.  A paternity test does not make one a father; it demonstrates that one was a child’s father all along.  So also, Spirit-inspired works do not make one a covenant member in Wright’s view; they demonstrate that one has been a covenant member all along.  The assertion that Wright understands Spirit-inspired works to be the believer’s “righteousness” in final justification misconstrues both his understanding of the meaning of “righteousness” language and his understanding of the question under consideration in the divine courtroom.

and

He still holds that Spirit-inspired works serve as the evidence that one is truly a member of God’s covenant people in final justification, and this corresponds to his understanding of the function of faith in present justification.  He has not changed his view at all, but he has finally offered the clarification for which Piper hoped by denying that he understands works to be the “basis” of final justification in the way that Piper understands Christ’s righteousness to be the “basis” of final justification.  One might wish that he had made this clarification clearer in his book-length reply to Piper (Justification: God’s Plan and Paul’s Vision), but we may all be grateful that he is now speaking in a way that perhaps fewer people will misunderstand.  

J. Stellman  talking on Romans http://www.creedcodecult.com/what-counted-as-abrahams-righteousness/
and in particular this passage:

What does the Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness.” Now to the one who works, his wages are not counted as a gift but as his due. And to the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness…

says:

... What was it that “counted” as righteousness for him? What (to put it a third way) was “considered” or “esteemed” or “imputed” as the righteousness of Abraham?

The answer is quite simple: Abraham’s faith  is what was considered by God as his righteousness. In fact, any neutral reader of this text would think it superfluous for me to waste time pointing this out (by “neutral reader,” I simply mean someone who reads the text and seeks to understand it based upon its actual words).

and he asks:

My question, then, is this: If Paul was operating from a paradigm that said that it was not Abraham’s faith itself that was counted as his righteousness, then how likely is it that he would have written (in the most important section in all of his writings on the subject) that “Abraham’s faith was counted as his righteousness”? Because I would argue that before we delve too deeply into the details of Paul’s argument, this basic question must be answered.

and in a comment:

 " in Romans. Notice how Paul bookends the epistle—he begins in ch. 1 by saying of his ministry:

… we have received grace and apostleship to bring about the obedience of faithfor the sake of his name among all the nations…

And at the very end, in ch. 16, he returns to the theme of his apostolic ministry:

… my gospel and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery that was kept secret for long ages but has now been disclosed and through the prophetic writings has been made known to all nations, according to the command of the eternal God, to bring about the obedience of faith…

So the epistle opens and closes with statements about Paul’s ministry that indicate that he was an ambassador of the New Covenant to bring about the inner transformation that Moses required but could not accomplish (what he twice calls “the obedience of faith”). Moreover, he makes it clear in both instances that this obedience of faith was to be applied to “all nations,” further indicating the New Covenant flavor of his ministry: the NC, which fulfills the promise to Abraham that his seed would bless all nations, is not just for Jews, but for Gentiles as well, provided they exhibit the obedience of faith."

and

... this is a carefully constructed covenantal argument in which Paul is trying to show that Abraham is actually (and somewhat ironically) one of those law-keeping Gentiles he described so vividly in ch. 2: He was a man who, while uncircumcised, exhibited the faithful obedience that the subsequent Mosaic law could never produce.

and

  the “basis of our righteousness” being the cross of Christ, then we agree. But unfortunately, this doesn’t address what we’re talking about here. The cross being the basis for our salvation does not by itself prove that we receive its saving benefits through an extrinsic imputation verses through the Spirit-infused love of God.

and

 Paul’s point stands regardless of how we interpret the logizomai question. But if this is the case, I have to ask: “If Paul’s argument in no way hinges on the Reformed understanding of imputation, and if Paul clearly states his formula in a way that not only leaves the door open to non-Reformed positions but in fact makes those non-Reformed positions seem like more natural and less torturous readings of the text, then why insist on the Reformed view? I mean, where does Paul actually say that the obedience of Jesus to the law is forensically imputed to us through a passive and non-contributory faith alone?”