Comments on: Mike Wittmer on N.T. Wright and the What it Means to be Protestant http://www.chrisbrauns.com/2009/06/25/mike-wittmer-on-n-t-wright-and-the-what-it-means-to-be-protestant/ The Web Site and Blog of Pastor Chris Brauns Wed, 10 Mar 2010 23:44:57 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: N.T. Wright: Churches that Mainly Use the NIV Don’t Understand Paul at A Brick in the Valley http://www.chrisbrauns.com/2009/06/25/mike-wittmer-on-n-t-wright-and-the-what-it-means-to-be-protestant/comment-page-1/#comment-2061 N.T. Wright: Churches that Mainly Use the NIV Don’t Understand Paul at A Brick in the Valley Thu, 16 Jul 2009 02:54:44 +0000 http://www.chrisbrauns.com/2009/06/25/mike-wittmer-on-n-t-wright-and-the-what-it-means-to-be-protestant/#comment-2061 [...] have shared previously (see here) that while many evangelicals are unaware of the discussion taking place regarding the New [...] [...] have shared previously (see here) that while many evangelicals are unaware of the discussion taking place regarding the New [...]

]]> By: Dip Your Big Toe into the Justification Debate « Triangular Christianity http://www.chrisbrauns.com/2009/06/25/mike-wittmer-on-n-t-wright-and-the-what-it-means-to-be-protestant/comment-page-1/#comment-1952 Dip Your Big Toe into the Justification Debate « Triangular Christianity Sat, 27 Jun 2009 01:11:43 +0000 http://www.chrisbrauns.com/2009/06/25/mike-wittmer-on-n-t-wright-and-the-what-it-means-to-be-protestant/#comment-1952 [...] post by Mike Wittmer (Thanks to Chris Brauns with his insights as [...] [...] post by Mike Wittmer (Thanks to Chris Brauns with his insights as [...]

]]> By: MTB http://www.chrisbrauns.com/2009/06/25/mike-wittmer-on-n-t-wright-and-the-what-it-means-to-be-protestant/comment-page-1/#comment-1937 MTB Fri, 26 Jun 2009 03:06:44 +0000 http://www.chrisbrauns.com/2009/06/25/mike-wittmer-on-n-t-wright-and-the-what-it-means-to-be-protestant/#comment-1937 It is interesting that a person who seems to have a real handle on some subject(s) (ie. resurrection) can be hazy on others (ie. justification). I lean towards the Piper camp. Good post as always! It is interesting that a person who seems to have a real handle on some subject(s) (ie. resurrection) can be hazy on others (ie. justification). I lean towards the Piper camp. Good post as always!

]]> By: Chris http://www.chrisbrauns.com/2009/06/25/mike-wittmer-on-n-t-wright-and-the-what-it-means-to-be-protestant/comment-page-1/#comment-1935 Chris Thu, 25 Jun 2009 23:04:46 +0000 http://www.chrisbrauns.com/2009/06/25/mike-wittmer-on-n-t-wright-and-the-what-it-means-to-be-protestant/#comment-1935 Matt--thanks you were careful. The passage in James has always been a difficult one. We know Luther's proposed solution regarding James: burn it. I definitely agree with your point about Ephesians 2. It is semantics. But, then semantics are important. Great to hear from you! Matt–thanks you were careful. The passage in James has always been a difficult one. We know Luther’s proposed solution regarding James: burn it. I definitely agree with your point about Ephesians 2.

It is semantics. But, then semantics are important.

Great to hear from you!

]]> By: Matt Winquist http://www.chrisbrauns.com/2009/06/25/mike-wittmer-on-n-t-wright-and-the-what-it-means-to-be-protestant/comment-page-1/#comment-1934 Matt Winquist Thu, 25 Jun 2009 22:01:04 +0000 http://www.chrisbrauns.com/2009/06/25/mike-wittmer-on-n-t-wright-and-the-what-it-means-to-be-protestant/#comment-1934 Chris, I probably shouldn't say too much on the subject since I haven't read the book, but if Mike Wittmer describes N.T. Wright's position accurately, then I don't really have a problem with it at all. It would seem that Wright does a better job than most protestants at explaining the blurry lines concerning the use of the word "justification" in the NT. There is no question that we are declared righteous in God's site because of his grace (Rom. 3:24). However, it is also clear that we are created in Christ to do good works (Eph. 2:10) and in some sense or another are justified by works that we do and not faith alone (James 2:24). I think the key is in passages like Eph 2:10 where it is clear that the works are the result of Christ's work of salvation which is already in place. If Wright's position were to slip into those works being done on our own merit, then I'd have a problem with that. Otherwise, from a 2nd hand glance, it looks good to me. I also don't really see how that disagrees with Protestantism...seems to be mostly semantics...justification vs. sanctification, etc. Ok, clearly I've already said more than I should say having not read the book. :) Chris, I probably shouldn’t say too much on the subject since I haven’t read the book, but if Mike Wittmer describes N.T. Wright’s position accurately, then I don’t really have a problem with it at all. It would seem that Wright does a better job than most protestants at explaining the blurry lines concerning the use of the word “justification” in the NT. There is no question that we are declared righteous in God’s site because of his grace (Rom. 3:24). However, it is also clear that we are created in Christ to do good works (Eph. 2:10) and in some sense or another are justified by works that we do and not faith alone (James 2:24). I think the key is in passages like Eph 2:10 where it is clear that the works are the result of Christ’s work of salvation which is already in place. If Wright’s position were to slip into those works being done on our own merit, then I’d have a problem with that. Otherwise, from a 2nd hand glance, it looks good to me. I also don’t really see how that disagrees with Protestantism…seems to be mostly semantics…justification vs. sanctification, etc.

Ok, clearly I’ve already said more than I should say having not read the book. :)

]]>