Another good topic to publish is Bishop N.T. Wright’s view of justification. This was taken from the Mandate magazine. I think that this basic tenor of Wright’s argument is often overlooked and thus excludes many. So, here is a basic outline, from Wright, of his teachings of justification. But beware, once you begin to understand this you will have to be very careful with this information when around Reformed Presbyterians. There is much controversy about Wright and the Presbyterians he has influenced.

1. It’s best to begin at the end, with Paul’s view of the future.(a) The one true God will finally judge the whole world; on that day, some will be found guilty and others will be upheld (Rom. 2.1-16). God’s vindication of these latter on the last day is his act of final “justification” (Rom. 2.13). The word carries overtones of the law court.(b) But not only the law court. Justification is part of Paul’s picture of the family God promised (i.e. covenanted) to Abraham. When God, as judge, finds in favor of people on the last day, they are declared to be part of this family (Rom. 4; cf. Gal. 3). This is why law court imagery is appropriate: the covenant was there, from Genesis onwards, so that through it God could deal with sin and death, could (in other words) put his creation to rights.(c) This double declaration will take the form of an event. All God’s people will receive resurrection bodies, to share the promised inheritance, the renewed creation (Rom. 8). This event, which from one point of view is their ‘justification; is therefore 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 (Rom. 4).

2. Moving back from the future to the past, God’s action in Jesus forms Paul’s template for this final justification.(a) Jesus has been faithful, obedient to God’s saving purposes right up to death (Rom. 5.12-21; Phil. 2.6-9); God has now declared decisively that he is the Son of God, the Messiah, in whom Israel’s destiny has been summed up (Rom. 1.3f.).(b) Jesus’ resurrection was, for Paul, the evidence that God really had dealt with sin onthe cross (1 Cor. 15.12-19). In the death of Jesus God accomplished what had been promised to Abraham, and “what the law could not do” (Rom. 8.3): for those who belong to the Messiah, there is “no condemnation” (Rom. 8.1, 8.31-9).(c) The event in which all this actually happened was the resurrection of the crucified Jesus.

3. Justification in the present is based on God’s past accomplishment in Christ, and anticipates the future verdict. This present justification has exactly the same pattern.(a) God vindicates in the present, in advance of the last day, all those who believe in Jesus as Messiah and Lord (Rom. 3.21-31; 4.13-25; 10.9-13). The law court language indicates what is meant. “Justification” itself is not God’s act of changing the heart or character of the person; that is what Paul means by the “call’; which comes through the word and the Spirit. “Justification” has a specific, and narrower, reference: it is God’s declaration that the person is now in the right, which confers on them the status “righteous’; (We may note that, since “righteous’” here, within the law court metaphor, refers to “status’; not “character’; we correctly say that God’s declaration makes the person “righteous’; i.e. in good standing.)(b) This present declaration constitutes all believers as the single people, the one family, promised to Abraham (Gal. 2.14 - 3.29; Rom. 3.27 - 4.17), the people whose sins have been dealt with as part of the fulfilled promise of covenant renewal (Jer. 31.31-34). Membership in this family cannot be played off against forgiveness of sins: the two belong together.(c) The event in the present which corresponds to Jesus’ death and resurrection in the past, and the resurrection of all believers in the future, is baptism into Christ (Gal. 3.26-9; Rom. 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” (Rom. 8.24). Among the remaining questions, three matters stand out at the moment. The “faith” in question is faith in “the God who raised Jesus from the dead’; It comes about through the announcement of God’s word, the gospel, which works powerfully in the hearts of hearers, “calling” them to believe, or indeed (as Paul often puts it) to “obey” the gospel (Rom. 1.16f.; 1 Thess. 1.3f., 2.13; 2 Thess. 1.8). This faith looks backwards to what God has done in Christ, by means of his own obedient faithfulness to God’s purpose (Rom. 5.19; Phil. 2.6), relying on that rather than on anything that is true of oneself. For Paul, this meant refusing to regard the badges of Jewish law-observance (”the works of the law”) as the decisive factor (Phil. 3.2-11). And it looks forward to the final day: because this faith is the first sign of new God-given life, it is the appropriate anticipation of the final verdict, which is guaranteed by the same Spirit who inspired faith (2 Cor. 1.22; Phil. 1.6). By “the gospel” Paul does not mean “justification by faith” itself. 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 itself is a second-order doctrine: to believe it is both to have assurance (believing that one will be vindicated on the last day [Rom. 5.1-5]) and to know that one belongs in the single family of God, called to share table-fellowship without distinction with all other believers (Gal. 2.11-21).”Justification” is thus the declaration of God, the just judge, that someone is (a) in the right, that their sins are forgiven, and (b) a true member of the covenant family, the people belonging to Abraham. That is how the word works in Paul’s writings. It doesn’t describe how people get in to God’s forgiven family; it declares that they are in. That may seem a small distinction, but in understanding what Paul is saying it is vital.

Wright is saying that salvation is broken down, not just in the forensic sense of escaping judgment,, but also in the corporate sense of the very family of God and the believers place in this family. He is also is inclusive to eschatology - how all of this pans out in time itself. Paul did not set out to create a systematic approach to salvation. He did not receive special instruction from God to reduce the Gospel to a mere rhetoric, although he did use rhetoric when he preached, wrote and generally debated. He used the word ‘justification’ as a polemist and not as a systematic theologian. It’s doubtful that Paul intended the word ‘justification’ to be used as a liturgy/doctrine. He did, though, use it frequently, but he used it interchangeably. He says in one area that we are justified by blood (Romans 5:9), then in another, grace (Romans 3:24), and yet in another, faith (Romans 5:1), and even by Christ’s name alone (1 Cor. 6:11). Well, which one is it? It is all of the above, because justification takes its form in relation to salvation itself. Justification is not, like many imply, a point in one’s life that must be identified to some sort of emotional or psychological “conversion.” I do not believe the Reformers taught that. That is simply modern Baptistic theology. Justification is about God “placing” us in his plan of redemption; and yes, declaring us righteous. But we should not get hung up on his ‘declaration.’ Law-court language is helpful but not inclusive to all God’s power, which is why Paul used the word interchangeably.

I am waiting for someone other than NT Wright to write something to the effect of “Pauline Apologetics.” This would be presuppositional in nature, but inclusive to the ancient Greek polemics and a high view of the Church-corporate; something that is inclusive to all three of the giants: Luther, Calvin and yes, Aquinas as well.