NT Wright vs. James White - St. Paul & Justification - Unbelievable?

NT (Tom) Wright is a leading professor of New Testament at the forefront of the New Perspective on Paul. His reassesment of the words of Paul on "justification" have led to concern from reformed church leaders like John Piper.

Is Wright undermining important doctrine, or did the reformers read their Bible wrong?

James White, reformed Bible scholar discusses with Wright as they seek to find out what Paul really said about justification.

Plus news about the forthcoming Unbelievable? Conference 2013 "Jesus: liar, lunatic, legand...or Lord?"





You may also enjoy:

Unbelievable? 19 May 2012 - Was Jesus a Calvinist? James White & David Instone-Brewer

Unbelievable? 6 August 2011 - Bart Ehrman & Darrell Bock on "Forged"

[artvanderlay]

At 38:49 Tom farts, James loses his train of thought and starts speaking in tongues :-D

[Selahsmum]

I just love that this was a civil, intelligent discussion.

[j.sethfrazer]

I love NT Wright and I have deep respect for James White. Love this discussion 🤗

[oscargt]

would be nice to hear a condensed version of this where we only hear them talking.

[pccj]

Justification in my opinion is simply the same thing that happened to Abraham. Pre law, God comes to a sinner and the sinner either believes God and is provided with righteousness and a sacrifice, or denies God and dies in his sin. Having faith in God justifies you as a child of abraham.

[michaelphiffer]

Listening to mature well informed conversations like this with two major league pastor makes me feel as if I'm at the bottom of the mountain of scriptural and theological home work again. My goodness!

[paulkiernan]

Great to revisit this link. I had listened to key parts many times. So much good for faith crammed into one video fiscussion. NT W seems to be more or less affirming the Catholic understanding of justification.

[austinamilne]

My man Justin got the Wii Sports theme in the interlude 😂❤️

Such a great, edifying conversation. Great work guys.

[MrPawPaw]

Well that was enlightening. Hope their both along with our host doing well. What I found interesting is I always been taught White's view but when I read the new testament as a whole I see NTs view. Pretty clearly actually. That is just reading it without commentaries.
Follow Jesus people and you won't go wrong.
Shalom

[Gernatch]

Why can't this debate happen again in a more formal setting!? I want to see it.

[joelrodriguez]

Ooh man, how ironic this is.
A "reformed" guy wants to follow his traditions and an Anglican is the one urging him to go back to the scriptures and get it right.
I am glad to be alive to see this.

[DanielWesleyKCK]

I'm fascinated and amused how Tom Wright is consistently portrayed as the boogeyman, particularly by the Reformed crowd. It's also a bit ironic because Wright holds Calvin in such high regard. It's just that he's come to realize that neither Calvin nor the Reformed creeds are infallible or never in need of re-evaluation.

Wright has more than done his homework and has picked up on the considerable overlap in the form, language, and rhetoric that Paul shares with the 2nd Temple Jewish world. Context, context, context!

[Leadeshipcoach]

I know I am late to the party ( this interview with Wright and White was six years ago) but I must say that this was a great interview!

I am of the New Perspective persuasion and NT Wright is one of my favorite scholars.

I believe that both brothers did a great job of articulating their points.

This was the first time I have listened to an entire segment with James White and I think he did a wonderful job of listening and being respectful. I appreciate James consistent exhortation that those of us on different sides of a debate need to really spend times listening to and understanding the other sides point of view so that we don’t misrepresent them and can communicate with them with understanding and knowledge.

And as always I felt NT did a great job.

Again great interview.

Justin... I love what you are doing . Thank you!

[Jordan-hzwr]

I may just be theologically illiterate, but I felt like this discussion was rather pointless. Both are right and neither one was really disagreeing with anything the other was saying. So in the end I’m left wondering, what exactly are we debating here?

[frkybig]

I love that Wright says; "Don't say 'feel' if you really mean think. Brilliant assumption bomb. Another good point: What are the 1st century questions? If we can't even get the context correct, we're already operating with one arm. Finally, my favorite: "Heaven is important, but it's not the end of the world."

[CanadianOrth]

Glad Wright pressed White on 2 Cor 5:21 because in Reformed theology, they absolutely insist that this is a forensic imputation Justification passage, just as they do in Romans 5:19. The former says we "become" the righteousness of God and the latter that we are "made" righteous. Yet the Reformed vehemently deny that in Justification anyone becomes or is made righteous, but that it is a declaration of status, occurring extra nos.

[ThejaTseikha]

Appreciate your channel Justin and for this video particularly. A very good start to bridging the two sides in a fruitful and civil way.
I think NT wright's main point is- faith without works is dead- true faith is faith that results in action. A true love of God that results in love for neighbor. We can't say we believe and show no signs of faith- even CS Lewis tells of this of a person climbing down a hill by a rope held by someone. And Wright has made it clear that this 'works' that accompany faith is by grace alone. I just hope he doesn't say the quantity of that works matter for salvation, even though its presence matters.

I don't think this is in conflict with the Reformed tradition- God commands us, but we can't do it- so he empowers us and does it through us.
For Salvation He commands all to believe in Christ but no one can unless the Holy Spirit convicts and removes the veil- and so also is sanctification(I think)- God commands a faith that bears fruit, a genuine faith- not an 'I don't know you' faith- a faith that is alive, that results in action- 'He that endures to the end will be saved' and this faith is started and sustained(held fast) and perfected by Christ Himself.

And I don't think either side will deny this. Just that- NT says one end of the stick is necessary (fruit/faith that results in action) while the Reformed tradition says the other end is indispensable (faith and faith alone). But in between both the ends God is the one lifting and holding the stick up.

I think this boils down to 'genuine faith' - one that is fully trusting in Christ- a validation of the Reformed view of faith and purification/ sieving of it from superficial faith by Wright's points.

Ultimately it's not faith that saves but faith in Christ that does (as Spurgeon said) and it isn't works that is pleasing to God but works that flows from faith, no matter how small it be(the thief on the cross)- for without faith it is impossible to please Him.
In the midst of all these debates, very helpful and important as they are, we shouldn't forget that it is ultimately the goodness of God and who He is that is the point of all things- His glory- and that He is the one justifying us, sanctifying us and will one day glorify us. We forfeited Eden and relationship with God because we distrusted His word over the devil's. Now in an ironic way He is bringing us back to Him through faith in 'the Word'- Christ. We shouldn't set aside the fruit of the Tree of Life because we want to know the mechanism of why and how it is tasty.

[NorCaltheologians]

Ehrman brought in the category of Jesus as "legend" and when CS Lewis was asked about that category he said that this just makes the problem worse for the skeptic because now you have 12 inexplicable lunatics rather than just one, lol

[papasmurf]

We are saved by GRACE through FAITH (Ephesians 2:8) working through CHARITY (Galatians 5:6).

[lightlover]

The peace of God characterized wholly as "nothing to do with me" is a hopeless distortion. I find it amazing how a debate with a Calvinist always gets reduced to "something about me." Yet, the claim is Christ ONLY, always Christ ONLY. This is institutional schizoid theology distorted to an angle of comfort.