N.T. Wright and James White on “Justification”

Justin Brierly, who hosts the UK Radio show “Unbelievable,” had N.T. Wright and James White on his show discussing “St. Paul and Justification.”

Below is a 1.:25 hrs of audio:

YouTube Preview Image

HT: Near Emmaus

  • http://www.tillhecomes.org/ Jeremy Myers

    Were they in agreement or debating? From what I know of both, I assume it was a debate?

    • http://www.tillhecomes.org/ Jeremy Myers

      Ha. I guess I should have looked at the video title a bit better since it says “NT Wright vs. James White.”

  • Jeremy

    I thought James started out strong, but Wright finished up with a number of good points. Wright didn’t seem to explain how faith and a Spirit-led life lived work together in relation to final justification. It seemed Dr. Wright said “well a person is saved by faith, but there’s this other thing called life lived that we have to tack on somehow.” How do they relate to each other? Dr. Wright did not answer that. I thought Wright’s answer on the grounds of final justification was very very similar to what a Roman Catholic would say. But after all, Wright says the differences between Protestants and Roman Catholics is just over terminology (tell that to the members of the Council of Trent). White asked Wright very pointed questions, but got some hazy answers. I didn’t think White was really well-prepared when it came to actually defending from Scripture the classic Protestant view. I thought he kept mentioning “the traditional view…” and Wright countered by saying he was out Scripturing White. James never gave his interpretation of Romans 2:13 which I thought was key.

    • Anastasios

      Yes because Trent happened only yesterday (snark snark) and we still must keep obsessing about it over 400 years later.
      Read the Joint Statement on Justification (between Lutherans and Catholics) for a more up-to-date perspective.

  • Byron

    I thought Wright defended himself well. Seemed to me all White did was say say Wright cant say this or say that about what the traditional reformers are saying. White was unprepared but Wright always seems to be some what prepaired for the oppositions argument.

  • John Bayne

    Matt 18:3, “And said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.” Neither speaker are the least compliant with the condition of stepping onto the path of salvation as expressed in this verse. Exactly opposite to what NT Wright says here, Paul and John, the latter especially in 1 John 5:1-4, 3:9 and John 3:3-7, and 15:1-10, and Philippians 4:13, is all about the science of salvation through Christ and Him crucified. We all need but two things to make any worthwhile problem as good as solved: ability and opportunity, according to the saying: “Man proposes, God disposes” where ability is man’s part in excercsing the right action of his will, for infinity times zero equals zero, so we must do our part before God can help us, and God the Father’s part, in His infinite Providence, according to James 1:17, “Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above and cometh down from the Father of lights in whom is no variableness neither shadow of turning.” So the problem of salvation has two parts to it according to what I have just said, 1.We need to obtain the right to heaven and 2. We need to be fit for heaven.

    We obtain the right to heaven by accepting Christ’s blood in atoning for all of the sins which we have committed, so that we will have not a blot on our record in the Lamb’s Book of Life. Mary Magdeline received this clear slate when she believed, just like 1 John 5:1 declares , that Jesus is the Christ, and at that instant was born again. As a result, Jesus, after conceding that Mary sin was worthy of death then declared “Let him that is without sin cast the first stone,” and promptly began writing out the real life sins of her accusers beginning with the oldest, and when they had walked away defeated and ashamed from the oldest first until there were no more accusers, Jesus asked Mary where her accusers had gone. “Gone Lord,” she replied, at which Jesus declared, “Neither do I accuse thee. Go in peace and sin no more.” So we know for sure that Mary was born again in that short time before Christ declared that He did not condemn her, and confirmed that she had a clean slate by telling her to go in peace and sin no more. So she secured the rigth to heaven through Christ, and Him crucified in her stead, which righteousness of Christ was imputed or credited to her conditionally on account of her believing that Jesus had a life in His blood which was equal to the Ten Commandments, which is to say that the life in His blood was Divine, infinite and uncreate as the Word of God, of John 1:1-3, 14, and 1 John 5:7. We know that the Father as the First Person of the Triune Godhead, not the Trinity, for the Trinity conotates the immaculate conception of Mary and most blasphemously tries to make her equal with God, which is a physical impossibility so that instead it takes the Divinity out of the Godhead, making them a creation of man, like idols of wood and stone. The Devil tricks people into saying you can choose only between two things: 1. a Divine God who is only the Father or a God head of the Father, the Word and the Holy Ghost on condition that you accept the doctrine of the Immaculate conception of Mary, not of Jesus. Undeceived believers that Jesus is the Christ, insist on God being the Father, the Word and the Holy Ghost, as in 1 John 5:7 and that they are one. But also that all three are co equal, infinite, uncreate and divine, in space and time but not of it, having always existed before the creation of space and time and never being bound by creation.The onmipresence of God is infinite whereas all things created are finite, especially the physical universe, but remember that in spite of God’s omnipresence being infinitely larger than the universe, God has nevertheless made it so large it is impossible for created beings to ever reach the boundaries. Not accepting this is as naive and inexcusable as thinking that the whole universe revolves around our earth. 1 John 3:9 “Whosoever is born of God, doth not commit sin, for his seed remaineth in him and he cannot sin because he is born of God.” This implanted seed through faith that Jesus Christ is the Christ, first imputed by making us born again through the implanted seed, but the power to attain to fitness for heaven by being able to never break the Ten Copmmandments is imparted as expressed by 1 John 3:9 and Philippians 4:13, “I can do all things through Christ which strenghteneth me.,” which refers to the imparted righteousness referred to by John 15:5, “I am the vinte ye are teh branches: He that abideth in me, adn I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without me ye can do nothing.” A child can understand that fitness for heaven means bringing forth much fruit, the fruit meaning the nine fruits of the Holy Spirit in Galatians 5:22&23. There is much more to this, but suffice it to say here, that God only does something once, and so once He had His Word translated, according to gospel order, as a response to a petition to King James 1 by 1000 of the finest Puritan Christian men in the realm, we now had “a more sure word” as expressed by Peter in 2 Peter 1:19, remembering, as the following versed 20&21 tell us, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation, for the reason that holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Spirit. Human nature being what it is, those who blatantly disobey this injunction to make unauthorized translations also are tempted to commit the sin of Simon the Sorcerer, but intending to make merchandise of the work of the Holy Spirit as mentioned in 2 Peter 1:21, by applying for intellectual property proprietorship over their unauthorized forbidden translations so that they, by copyrighting their translations can not only claim royalties on publications and sales, but have the right to sue for damages against unauthorized public use of their profane translations, remembering that God most severely condemns those professing Christians who fail to discern between the sacred and the profane. There is no excuse really because I have noticed that all Revised Versions I have are all copyrighted private and forbidden translations. By definition the word of a copyrighted translation, not to be confused with copyrighted type and binding etc… or the printers right to print the KJV of 1611, that copyright on the KJV is not a copyright forbidding use of the translation but forbidding anyone commercially printing or publishing that translation without this copyright or permission of the holder of that copyright. The only copyright that could condemn the KJV would be if the translators had not been chosen and cross checked each other according to gospel order and then each translated part after being triple checked internally thorught the three groups of 16 I think it was, was then thrown open to the realm to check and comment. This is not at all geared to a copyright that would prove the KJV to be a private interpretation for the very gospel order protects us and the translators from it ever being a private interpretation. I noticed that Tom Wright read out of a Revised Version and know enough about James White to know he is as agaist the KJV Only as anyone can be. Jesus repeatedly declares if you love me keep my commandments and by this commandment keeping you will know my children, and even in 1 John 2:4, “He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him.” Revelation 14:12, middle part tells us that God’s remnant church will keep the Commandments of God and the faith of Jesus. There is over 33,000 different Christian denominations, but only one of those, for sure which does not break either or both, the fourth commandment as a Sunday keeping church, or the seventh commandment by allowing members retain their membership in spite of committing adultery, through thinking that by being the innocent party to a divorce on the grounds for adultery that they can remarry while the original partner still lives, without transgressing the seventh commandment, obviously not reading Luke 16:18 which declares that the person who marries the innocent spouse who is put away by her husband (Mark 10:11&12 showing that this restriction is not gender sensitive because it is a principle) and Romans 7:1-3 tells us the reason why this is so: because we are bound by the law of our spouse so long as they live.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X