N.T. Wright and the Reformed view of salvation

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally posted by Saiph
Belief entails more than the rigid doctrine of sola fide. How God justifies us is more mysterious than just alien forensic righteousness placed upon us. I find the reformed idea to be an oversimplification.

Hebrews 11:6
And without faith it is impossible to please him, for whoever would draw near to God must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who seek him.

Jude 1:5
Now I want to remind you, although you once fully knew it, that Jesus, who saved a people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed those who did not believe.

Faith is existential throughout the Gospels and new testament record. It is lived out in spite of understanding, and seems to involve more of the human will than many reformed people I speak with will admit.

How does Wright's idea of righteousness actually contradict reformed theology ? I think it augments it.

Rom 3:20 For by works of the law no human being will be justified in his sight, since through the law comes knowledge of sin.

Are we justified by Christ's works of the law ? Or was Christ justified before God because He perfectly obeyed them ? Is it the actual righteousness of Christ imputed to us and infused in us by the power of the Holy Spirit ? Note the following verse:

Rom 3:21 But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it--

Rom 3:22 the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction:
Rom 3:23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,
Rom 3:24 and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus,
Rom 3:25 whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God's righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins.
Rom 3:26 It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.
Rom 3:27 Then what becomes of our boasting? It is excluded. By what kind of law? By a law of works? No, but by the law of faith.
Rom 3:28 For we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law.

Christ's work is applied for us first, and granted to us through the baptism of the Spirit.


Rom 16:25 Now to him who is able to strengthen you according to my gospel and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery that was kept secret for long ages
Rom 16:26 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--
Rom 16:27 to the only wise God be glory forevermore through Jesus Christ! Amen.

The righteousness of God is simply "the obedience of faith".

Mark,

The historic Reformed position is that the "righteousness of God" is the righteousness of Christ that is given to the believer (and this is true regardless of a double or single imputation scheme).

Wright's has redefined the "righteousness of God" to mean His covenantal faithfulness, which He imparts to us, and we are righteous through covenantal faithfulness. That is why Wright has no real doctrine of perseverance, because one can never really be sure whether one has enough covenantal faithfulness.

I believe that Wright does not follow the errors of many of the FV crowd in holding out the difficult route of covenantal faithfulness. Instead, for Wright, once you are in, you are in. That is why Wright calls for table fellowship with Rome. For Wright, the only real sin that can affect one's standing before God is to fail to be as inclusive as he is (and hence fall into the error that he says the Pharisees had - relying on "covenant badges" ).
 
Fred, a few serious questions for you then:

The historic Reformed position is that the "righteousness of God" is the righteousness of Christ that is given to the believer (and this is true regardless of a double or single imputation scheme).

Would that be the righteousness (obedience to the law) before the incarnation, or during the incarnation ? Because I see a logical contradiction of it being obedience in an existential sense. The laws of God are not for God they are for us. They reflect His perfect nature, but He himself is not subject to them. How could God commit adultry ? And God has every right to be jealous and "covet" our allegiance because everything is His to begin with. We break the laws by demanding or practicing what are divine prerogatives. He grants the civil government to power to bear the sword and carry out divine judgment, but none of us should murder, or kill at will for our own reasons. God can righteously kill for His own reasons however, without appealing to any court but Himself.

Wright's has redefined the "righteousness of God" to mean His covenantal faithfulness, which He imparts to us, and we are righteous through covenantal faithfulness. That is why Wright has no real doctrine of perseverance, because one can never really be sure whether one has enough covenantal faithfulness.

I have heard this supposed attack on assurance before but I do not see it. We have assurance only by faith. So if God grants us "covenantal faithfulness" by faith, then the assurance follows.
(When it comes to assurance, I become extremely fideistic. There is no epistemological justification other that simply believing the words of Christ. I have wrestled with doubt in this area since childhood.)

Rom 4:18 In hope he believed against hope, that he should become the father of many nations, as he had been told, "So shall your offspring be."

Heb 3:6 but Christ is faithful over God's house as a son. And we are his house if indeed we hold fast our confidence and our boasting in our hope.

Heb 6:11 And we desire each one of you to show the same earnestness to have the full assurance of hope until the end,
Heb 6:12 so that you may not be sluggish, but imitators of those who through faith and patience inherit the promises.
Heb 6:13 For when God made a promise to Abraham, since he had no one greater by whom to swear, he swore by himself,
Heb 6:14 saying, "Surely I will bless you and multiply you."

I believe that Wright does not follow the errors of many of the FV crowd in holding out the difficult route of covenantal faithfulness. Instead, for Wright, once you are in, you are in. That is why Wright calls for table fellowship with Rome. For Wright, the only real sin that can affect one's standing before God is to fail to be as inclusive as he is (and hence fall into the error that he says the Pharisees had - relying on "covenant badges" ).

That is an interesting point that I will need to further investigate.
 
It (Faith) is lived out in spite of understanding, and seems to involve more of the human will than many reformed people I speak with will admit.

This is impossible. You cannot have faith in something your do not understand, or believe soemthing contradictory. Understanding is essential to faith. Faith cannot be faith without understanding.
 
Originally posted by C. Matthew McMahon
It (Faith) is lived out in spite of understanding, and seems to involve more of the human will than many reformed people I speak with will admit.

This is impossible. You cannot have faith in something your do not understand, or believe soemthing contradictory. Understanding is essential to faith. Faith cannot be faith without understanding.

Why is it then that the more we study and try to exhaust any given subject, the wider and deeper our confusion becomes ? Every answer leads to more questions in an infinite regress. At least it does for me.
In the end, I must have faith in the simple truths. God is triune. God became flesh. Christ died so that I could live by faith in His life, death, and resurrection. God's election is independent of our human understanding. He grants us knowledge, but it seems as though none of His children can even agree on the simplest doctrines (e.g. baptism).

We read the theologians throughout history and disagree on many points. I disagree with Pelagius for instance, but does that mean he is reprobate ? I honestly do not know if he was saved or not. Could God save him in spite of his understanding ? Could someone like Calvin or Edwards be reprobate ? I have no idea. But we should not be too eager to hand out anathemas on every theologian that disagree on how justification works. The New Testament writers seems to be much more zealous on protecting the diety of Christ than the doctrine of justification. An antichrist is one who denies Christ as God, not sola fide.
 
Originally posted by Saiph
Why is it then that the more we study and try to exhaust any given subject, the wider and deeper our confusion becomes ?

Because people are not careful to consider everything that should be considered.

In the end, I must have faith in the simple truths. God is triune. God became flesh. Christ died so that I could live by faith in His life, death, and resurrection.

It is contending for the truth of those very things that we are discussing. Justification is imposed upon God's declaritve acts, Christ's works, His covenant promises, election, etc.

We read the theologians throughout history and disagree on many points. I disagree with Pelagius for instance, but does that mean he is reprobate ?

Simply because anyone disagrees with another does not make a person reprobate. What makes a person reprobate is God's decree. That is different, though, than a heretic. A decree is not something we have privy information to. But in accordance to what we know to be true based on Scripture, someone could certainly demonstrate themselves as not only heretics, but reprobate.

What makes them a heretic (something Paul certainly believed that we could know (cf. Titus 3:10)) is theological heresy.

I honestly do not know if he was saved or not. Could God save him in spite of his understanding ?

Can God save a heretic? Certainly. But he would have to repent of his heresy and God's power would help him do that.

Could someone like Calvin or Edwards be reprobate ?

Only if they rejected the Gospel or the cardinal truths of the Scriptures.

I have no idea.

This is a very sad place to be in then, Mark. It means you cannot be sure about your salvation, much less anyone else's fruit. God is much more explicit than that. We can "know" we have eternal life, and we can "know" a tree by its fruit. But we first have to "know" what the Scriptures say about such things.

But we should not be too eager to hand out anathemas on every theologian that disagree on how justification works. The New Testament writers seems to be much more zealous on protecting the diety of Christ than the doctrine of justification. An antichrist is one who denies Christ as God, not sola fide.

We should be very eager, though, to hold onto the truth. The Scripture is overrun with our need to 1) understand the truth, 2) embrace the truth, and 3) contend for the truth.

John 8:32 "And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free."

Romans 2:2 But we know that the judgment of God is according to truth against those who practice such things.

1 Timothy 3:15 I write so that you may know how you ought to conduct yourself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.

2 Timothy 2:25 if God perhaps will grant them repentance, so that they may know the truth,

1 John 2:21 I have not written to you because you do not know the truth, but because you know it, and that no lie is of the truth.

1 John 3:18-19 My little children, let us not love in word or in tongue, but in deed and in truth. 19 And by this we know that we are of the truth, and shall assure our hearts before Him.

1 John 4:6 We are of God. He who knows God hears us; he who is not of God does not hear us. By this we know the spirit of truth and the spirit of error.

Jude 1:3 Beloved, while I was very diligent to write to you concerning our common salvation, I found it necessary to write to you exhorting you to contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints.
 
This is a very sad place to be in then, Mark. It means you cannot be sure about your salvation, much less anyone else's fruit. God is much more explicit than that. We can "know" we have eternal life, and we can "know" a tree by its fruit. But we first have to "know" what the Scriptures say about such things.

When the scripture says we can "know" them by their fruit it is making a generic statement regarding outward appearances. In other words, treat them as the saints if their fruit matches the tree. However, there are wolves in sheeps clothing. So we trust God and do not presume to uproot tares lest we kill some wheat too. And we are also called to pray and have hope for those not bearing fruit. There is no absolute epistemological justification for such knowledge. Even our judgment of others is by faith because we cannot discern their motives.

And yes, I do not possess any assurance. I have tried for years to figure out how to experience it or "know" it. In the end, I believe I am saved. I have no epistemological or existential proof for that though. The scripture states that we are kept in Christ. I believe that. But I do not feel the Holy Spirit or hear Him telling me anything. I envy my charismatic friends sometimes.

The point I am trying to make is that Pelagius could be saved in spite of his pelagianism. Just as I believe I am saved in spite of my Markisms. Every day God reveals new things to me that revise my theology. And, when looking back, I held to some errors for many years (Dispensationalism, Arminianism, Annihilation, Baptismal Regeneration, and a few others). Was He not with me during those years ? ? I may die tomorrow with an incomplete and/or incorrect theology. But my faith in Christ as Lord and redeemer is my only hope. God forbid that we should be saved by our theology.

Jesus is the truth (Jn. 14:6). The Word of God is the truth (Jn. 17:17). We can know the truth, and the truth sets us free (Jn. 8:32). But we cannot know the Truth; we can know the truth but not the Truth (in Merold Westphal´s useful distinction). God´s thoughts are higher than ours no less than His ways are not our ways (Is. 55:9). God knows comprehensively from all "œperspectives." Yet even to speak in such a way dramatically underestimates to the point of sacrilege the nature of divine knowledge.

Man is not God, and man´s knowledge is not God´s. Man´s knowledge "” including the knowledge conveyed in these lines "” may be truthful in a creaturely sense, but it is always perspectival, incomplete, tentative and subject to error. This is why all human constructions "” even theological constructions that appear in creeds and confessions "” are subject to revision in light of the Holy Spirit speaking infallibly in Sacred Scripture. Some individuals do not grasp this simple fact, however, and vest their own (or somebody else´s) deep theological reflections with the Truth as it exists in the mind of God. They do not grasp that all seeing is seeing as, and that the eyes of revered predecessors saw only "” could see only "” perspectivally and tentatively.

P. Andrew Sandlin

[Edited on 12-27-2005 by Saiph]
 
Cornelius Van Til on the Limitations of Human Knowledge

"Man´s system of truth, even when formulated in direct and self-conscious subordination to the revelation of the system of truth contained in Scripture, is "¦ not a deductive system. God has in himself absolute truth. God is truth. We need not call it a system of truth because there is, in his case, no gathering of facts into coherent relationships with one another. Secondly, God reveals to man in Scripture a system of truth. But this system is not an exhaustive replica of the truth as it is in God himself. It is a system that is adapted to human understanding. Third, the church´s restatement of this revealed system of truth is a reworking of the system of truth in the Scripture. It cannot therefore lay claim to be of the same authority as the system of the Bible. But the church must, of necessity, set forth a system of truth in the form of Confessions. It must do so in order to better understand the truth of Scripture and in order to oppose error.

""¦ To be faithful to the system of truth as found in Scripture one must not take one doctrine and deduce from it by means of syllogistic procedure what he thinks follows from it. One must rather gather together all the facts and all the teachings of Scripture and organize them as best he can, always mindful of the fact that such ordering is the ordering of the revelation of God, who is never fully comprehensible to man."

A Christian Theory of Knowledge, p. 38 [1969]


I find a great sense of balance in this quote.
 
Originally posted by C. Matthew McMahon

This is impossible. You cannot have faith in something your do not understand, or believe soemthing contradictory. Understanding is essential to faith. Faith cannot be faith without understanding.

What degree of understanding is necessary? Can a child have this kind of understanding? What about a mentally retarded person?

Is complete understanding necessary? And if this complete understanding comes about by our studies, is it a work that we have produced? Or is the understanding granted to us by God along with our faith? Are we always aware of this understanding, or can it, like the innate knowledge of God that all humans have, exist without our recognizing it?

And can I still have faith in the Trinity? Because, honestly, I don't fully understand it.
 
Originally posted by Saiph
This is a very sad place to be in then, Mark. It means you cannot be sure about your salvation, much less anyone else's fruit. God is much more explicit than that. We can "know" we have eternal life, and we can "know" a tree by its fruit. But we first have to "know" what the Scriptures say about such things.

When the scripture says we can "know" them by their fruit it is making a generic statement regarding outward appearances. In other words, treat them as the saints if their fruit matches the tree. However, there are wolves in sheeps clothing. So we trust God and do not presume to uproot tares lest we kill some wheat too. And we are also called to pray and have hope for those not bearing fruit. There is no absolute epistemological justification for such knowledge. Even our judgment of others is by faith because we cannot discern their motives.

And yes, I do not possess any assurance. I have tried for years to figure out how to experience it or "know" it. In the end, I believe I am saved. I have no epistemological or existential proof for that though. The scripture states that we are kept in Christ. I believe that. But I do not feel the Holy Spirit or hear Him telling me anything. I envy my charismatic friends sometimes.

The point I am trying to make is that Pelagius could be saved in spite of his pelagianism. Just as I believe I am saved in spite of my Markisms. Every day God reveals new things to me that revise my theology. And, when looking back, I held to some errors for many years (Dispensationalism, Arminianism, Annihilation, Baptismal Regeneration, and a few others). Was He not with me during those years ? ? I may die tomorrow with an incomplete and/or incorrect theology. But my faith in Christ as Lord and redeemer is my only hope. God forbid that we should be saved by our theology.

Jesus is the truth (Jn. 14:6). The Word of God is the truth (Jn. 17:17). We can know the truth, and the truth sets us free (Jn. 8:32). But we cannot know the Truth; we can know the truth but not the Truth (in Merold Westphal´s useful distinction). God´s thoughts are higher than ours no less than His ways are not our ways (Is. 55:9). God knows comprehensively from all "œperspectives." Yet even to speak in such a way dramatically underestimates to the point of sacrilege the nature of divine knowledge.

Man is not God, and man´s knowledge is not God´s. Man´s knowledge "” including the knowledge conveyed in these lines "” may be truthful in a creaturely sense, but it is always perspectival, incomplete, tentative and subject to error. This is why all human constructions "” even theological constructions that appear in creeds and confessions "” are subject to revision in light of the Holy Spirit speaking infallibly in Sacred Scripture. Some individuals do not grasp this simple fact, however, and vest their own (or somebody else´s) deep theological reflections with the Truth as it exists in the mind of God. They do not grasp that all seeing is seeing as, and that the eyes of revered predecessors saw only "” could see only "” perspectivally and tentatively.

P. Andrew Sandlin

[Edited on 12-27-2005 by Saiph]

Mark, I trust Sandlin as far as I can thorw him. But, not to go too far off the subject, I would heartily reccomend Hebrews 11 coupled with Beeke's book, "The Quest for Full Assurance." That may be of great help.

I think though, we should keep to the track of this thread which is suppose to be the theological view of NT Wright.

So far, no one had shown me that he is orthodox with any quotes based on what I've posted. It seems to be the majority opinion here that Wright is WRONG.

Can anyone pull up some "in context of his writings" quotes that vindicate him and recant anything that he has written in those other quotes? Jospeh's attempt at that in the beginning of this thread (simply quoting Wright) does not do him conprehensive justice, nor do they speak to anything I raised. That is due to a lack of reading Wright "somewhat" comprehensively.

Anything more to add?

I would like to add - I'd like to see people quoting, as Scott said, Edwards, Augustine, Turretin, Calvin, Luther, et. al. as much as they seem to have connection quoting people like Lusk, Wilson, Wright, Dunn, Sandlin, Horne, etc. Historical Theology is an important aspect of how all this pans out. That is why Wright, Lusk, etc., continually get historical theology wrong. 1) They don't "care" about it (which is why they misquote historical theologians continually, or are ignornt of them) and 2) they are interpreting the Bible "as story" instead of exegetically.
 
What degree of understanding is necessary?

Use Scripture to answer that.

Can a child have this kind of understanding? What about a mentally retarded person?

Are you asking if a child can be saved? Or a mentallyu reatrded person? Certainly, in both cases. Regeneration + Seed Faith is not the same as NT WRight espousing heresy. Don't confuse the two. One is provision for the child/retarded person, the other is flauting wickedness knowingly and/or ignorantly.

Is complete understanding necessary?

Yes, we have to believe the Gospel.

And if this complete understanding comes about by our studies, is it a work that we have produced?

Regernation ("Savedness") yeilds faith, which yields the acceptance of God's Word, not the rejection of it.

Or is the understanding granted to us by God along with our faith?

God gives us a new heart, a new disposition, which gives us the ability to think rightly, powered by the Spirit. He does not, obviously, innately set everything that He wants us to know immediately in our mind. The Spirit works that into the regenerate mediately by the Word of God. This is different than the properties of regeneration or faith which are implanted in a child or retarded person.

Are we always aware of this understanding, or can it, like the innate knowledge of God that all humans have, exist without our recognizing it?

We would not have threads like this one if we were all aware of it.
You cannot believe propositional truth without believing it. You cannot have faith on propositional truth, without believing it. You can be regenerated before you gain all the propositional truth to exercise faith.

And can I still have faith in the Trinity? Because, honestly, I don't fully understand it.

You understand the propositional truth int he dictums of the doctrine of the Trinity. The Trinity is not contra-logic, or illogical. It is mysterious. But that doe snot overthrow faith since you BELIEVE the propositions of the Bible concerning the Trinity. What is that?

"In the unity of the Godhead there be three persons, of one substance, power, and eternity: God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost: the Father is of none, neither begotten, nor proceeding; the Son is eternally begotten of the Father; the Holy Ghost eternally proceeding from the Father and the Son."

When we define the Trinity this way it is 1) not illogical, 2) what the Bible teaches, and 3) propositions that spur faith in the regenerate.

I don't know how Jesus walked on water, but I believe He did. But, then, how do I know He walked on water? ;) Answer that one and you have your answer.
 
Matt said:
. . . they are interpreting the Bible "as story" instead of exegetically.

In other words, they interpret the Bible the way Jesus did.


Hosea 12:10
I spoke to the prophets; it was I who multiplied visions, and through the prophets gave parables.

Mat 13:13 This is why I speak to them in parables, because seeing they do not see, and hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand.

Mat 13:35 This was to fulfill what was spoken by the prophet: "I will open my mouth in parables; I will utter what has been hidden since the foundation of the world."

The entire history of redemption is a parable. History itself is God's fiction, because He is the author, telling His story.

Psalm 78 is a theological parable, a psalm, and a narrative in one.




Psa 78:1 A Maskil of Asaph. Give ear, O my people, to my teaching; incline your ears to the words of my mouth!
Psa 78:2 I will open my mouth in a parable; I will utter dark sayings from of old,
Psa 78:3 things that we have heard and known, that our fathers have told us.

Psa 78:4 We will not hide them from their children, but tell to the coming generation the glorious deeds of the LORD, and his might, and the wonders that he has done.
Psa 78:5 He established a testimony in Jacob and appointed a law in Israel, which he commanded our fathers to teach to their children,
Psa 78:6 that the next generation might know them, the children yet unborn, and arise and tell them to their children,
Psa 78:7 so that they should set their hope in God and not forget the works of God, but keep his commandments;
Psa 78:8 and that they should not be like their fathers, a stubborn and rebellious generation, a generation whose heart was not steadfast, whose spirit was not faithful to God.
Psa 78:9 The Ephraimites, armed with the bow, turned back on the day of battle.
Psa 78:10 They did not keep God's covenant, but refused to walk according to his law.
Psa 78:11 They forgot his works and the wonders that he had shown them.
Psa 78:12 In the sight of their fathers he performed wonders in the land of Egypt, in the fields of Zoan.
Psa 78:13 He divided the sea and let them pass through it, and made the waters stand like a heap.
Psa 78:14 In the daytime he led them with a cloud, and all the night with a fiery light.
Psa 78:15 He split rocks in the wilderness and gave them drink abundantly as from the deep.
Psa 78:16 He made streams come out of the rock and caused waters to flow down like rivers.
Psa 78:17 Yet they sinned still more against him, rebelling against the Most High in the desert.
Psa 78:18 They tested God in their heart by demanding the food they craved.
Psa 78:19 They spoke against God, saying, "Can God spread a table in the wilderness?
Psa 78:20 He struck the rock so that water gushed out and streams overflowed. Can he also give bread or provide meat for his people?"
Psa 78:21 Therefore, when the LORD heard, he was full of wrath; a fire was kindled against Jacob; his anger rose against Israel,
Psa 78:22 because they did not believe in God and did not trust his saving power.
Psa 78:23 Yet he commanded the skies above and opened the doors of heaven,
Psa 78:24 and he rained down on them manna to eat and gave them the grain of heaven.
Psa 78:25 Man ate of the bread of the angels; he sent them food in abundance.
Psa 78:26 He caused the east wind to blow in the heavens, and by his power he led out the south wind;
Psa 78:27 he rained meat on them like dust, winged birds like the sand of the seas;
Psa 78:28 he let them fall in the midst of their camp, all around their dwellings.
Psa 78:29 And they ate and were well filled, for he gave them what they craved.
Psa 78:30 But before they had satisfied their craving, while the food was still in their mouths,
Psa 78:31 the anger of God rose against them, and he killed the strongest of them and laid low the young men of Israel.
Psa 78:32 In spite of all this, they still sinned; despite his wonders, they did not believe.
Psa 78:33 So he made their days vanish like a breath, and their years in terror.
Psa 78:34 When he killed them, they sought him; they repented and sought God earnestly.
Psa 78:35 They remembered that God was their rock, the Most High God their redeemer.
Psa 78:36 But they flattered him with their mouths; they lied to him with their tongues.
Psa 78:37 Their heart was not steadfast toward him; they were not faithful to his covenant.
Psa 78:38 Yet he, being compassionate, atoned for their iniquity and did not destroy them; he restrained his anger often and did not stir up all his wrath.
Psa 78:39 He remembered that they were but flesh, a wind that passes and comes not again.
Psa 78:40 How often they rebelled against him in the wilderness and grieved him in the desert!
Psa 78:41 They tested God again and again and provoked the Holy One of Israel.
Psa 78:42 They did not remember his power or the day when he redeemed them from the foe,
Psa 78:43 when he performed his signs in Egypt and his marvels in the fields of Zoan.
Psa 78:44 He turned their rivers to blood, so that they could not drink of their streams.
Psa 78:45 He sent among them swarms of flies, which devoured them, and frogs, which destroyed them.
Psa 78:46 He gave their crops to the destroying locust and the fruit of their labor to the locust.
Psa 78:47 He destroyed their vines with hail and their sycamores with frost.
Psa 78:48 He gave over their cattle to the hail and their flocks to thunderbolts.
Psa 78:49 He let loose on them his burning anger, wrath, indignation, and distress, a company of destroying angels.
Psa 78:50 He made a path for his anger; he did not spare them from death, but gave their lives over to the plague.
Psa 78:51 He struck down every firstborn in Egypt, the firstfruits of their strength in the tents of Ham.
Psa 78:52 Then he led out his people like sheep and guided them in the wilderness like a flock.
Psa 78:53 He led them in safety, so that they were not afraid, but the sea overwhelmed their enemies.
Psa 78:54 And he brought them to his holy land, to the mountain which his right hand had won.
Psa 78:55 He drove out nations before them; he apportioned them for a possession and settled the tribes of Israel in their tents.
Psa 78:56 Yet they tested and rebelled against the Most High God and did not keep his testimonies,
Psa 78:57 but turned away and acted treacherously like their fathers; they twisted like a deceitful bow.
Psa 78:58 For they provoked him to anger with their high places; they moved him to jealousy with their idols.
Psa 78:59 When God heard, he was full of wrath, and he utterly rejected Israel.
Psa 78:60 He forsook his dwelling at Shiloh, the tent where he dwelt among mankind,
Psa 78:61 and delivered his power to captivity, his glory to the hand of the foe.
Psa 78:62 He gave his people over to the sword and vented his wrath on his heritage.
Psa 78:63 Fire devoured their young men, and their young women had no marriage song.
Psa 78:64 Their priests fell by the sword, and their widows made no lamentation.
Psa 78:65 Then the Lord awoke as from sleep, like a strong man shouting because of wine.
Psa 78:66 And he put his adversaries to rout; he put them to everlasting shame.
Psa 78:67 He rejected the tent of Joseph; he did not choose the tribe of Ephraim,
Psa 78:68 but he chose the tribe of Judah, Mount Zion, which he loves.
Psa 78:69 He built his sanctuary like the high heavens, like the earth, which he has founded forever.
Psa 78:70 He chose David his servant and took him from the sheepfolds;
Psa 78:71 from following the nursing ewes he brought him to shepherd Jacob his people, Israel his inheritance.
Psa 78:72 With upright heart he shepherded them and guided them with his skillful hand.
 
When you look at hemlock growing out of the ground, it looks just like a carrot top. I'm not sure, but I suspect that their seeds look remarkably similar too.

The analogy I'm making is that one is poison and the other edible, but they have the same look to them, growing out. But no matter what, the seed of the carrot will only produce a carrot, and the seed of the hemlock only hemlock.

Jesus also used an herbal analogy: By their fruits you will know them. Neither the thief on the cross, nor a dead infant, nor the gentleman I buried three weeks ago had fruits of faith. In some cases they only had a profession. In the case of the infant, not even that, just a promise from God.

Some Christians are spared theological controversy. Their simple faith is a sufficient faith, and they stay within their bounds. Others like to gather a bunch of knowledge, but aren't particularly concerned how this stuff fits together, indeed some of it is incompatible, but they have the core. God gave teachers to his church to help people to keep certain things and throw others away. It is a curse to lose good teachers.

Then there are those who work at putting together a coherent body of truth. They are teachers, and teach the future teachers. They follow out lines of thought until they have found the connections. They keep following the tree of knowledge back down to the roots. They keep this and reject that, all the while mapping out their quest--until they find something essential, until they have either affirmed or denied a fundamental tenet of doctrine.

God alone knows how damnable any specific error is. But the more committed someone is, the more he is in love with his idolatrous errors, and seeks to get others to admit them as truth--and so deny more and more of the real truth, why, isn't that just bad fruit?

Christians, even very smart teachers back in the day, may not have defined themselves in our categories. Our theological tree has grown immensely, but the stock is still the same. They did not have such a requirement to hold to the "doctrine of justification" as articulated in our later Creeds and Confessions. They simply weren't fighting about those issues. They were fighting for the Deity of Christ and the Humanity of Christ! Those were the life and death issues of that day. And those who denied the truth were endangering their souls.

I love it, however, when we read some of those DTK quotes from the early Fathers, that in handling certain issues or texts they express themselves in simple eloquence concerning truths that later Christians died to safeguard. The later ones often held to more developed, more clearly defined ideas, but the connection to the faith of their fathers is also unmistakable.

So, whether the most modern fellow is denying the Trinity, or the hypostatic union, or justification by faith, we have to be able to have the confidence to say--those are corrupting notions that attack the true nature of God, of the Savior, of salvation. If these are lost, what becomes of the faith? Is it OK to have teachers that teach people as if they lived in a cocoon? As if all they need is that milk of the Word? As if they aren't going to be exposed to the most sophisticated deceptions that are out there? What is a "wind and wave" of doctrine, if not a desperate threat? What does a "faith shipwreck" look like?
 
Originally posted by C. Matthew McMahonHe says, "Justification, at the last, will be on the basis of performance, not possession." (Wright, Romans, 440).

Present justification for Wright is not justification is ANY Reformed sense, or biblical exegetical sense for that matter. It is simply the nonsensical idea of "covenant faithfulness". In the future, God will look at believers covenantal faithfulness and then determine, in His final judgment of all things "to be considered" if it is in line with a complete "covenantal obedience." But remember, this has nothing to do with King Jesus. This is Romanism repackaged.
Wright says nothing about looking at the belivers 'covenant faithfulness" at the end as far as I can see. He speaks of present justification as that which provides assurance.
Originaly from this blog entry by me

I do not see Wright arguing that the fact that the community that we enter in by God's effectual call is one that will indeed receive resurrection and eternal life at the end, after they have "gathered fruit for eternal life" (John 4:26), that because they receive it at the end, 'according to works' (Romans 2:6) that they therefore are not in any way possessors of eternal life now.

Rather, Wright claims explicitly that those who have faith receive in the present the verdict that will be declared upon them and their works at the last day: that they are righteous, and there is no question that the 'golden chain' of salvation in Romans 8 will not apply to the one with true faith. In contrast to Dunn, who operates from within a Wesleyan Evangelical tradition, Wright says
(Romans) 5 to 8 is saying those whom he also justified, them he also glorified. And that is part of the point of justification by faith, it that then and there is given that assurance, even though that has to be tested to the limit and has to face the possibility that faith itself might prove false, but I'm thinking of I Corinthians 3 where albeit he's talking about Christian workers rather than simply Christians per se, but where he speaks of those who build on the foundation with wood and hay and stubble, whose work will be burned up when they day appears, he says nevertheless that person will be saved
I also think that Rick Phillips obscuring something important about life by his need to refer to it as a 'possession,' which, while consonant with John's usage, seems to me really beside the point. The importance of 'life' as granted by God, and as Wright has outlined it speaking of Romans 8, is not to posses it like an object, but to put it to use in the service of God. It is a result of the Spirit (John 7:38) as much as a judicial declaration, and the two are inseparable.

Wright's claims about eternal life are quite far from saying it is something that only arrives at the end of the life lived by faith. On Romans 8:3-4, he says of the present reality of those that have faith in Messiah that
The life the Torah intended, indeed longed, to give to God's people is now truly given by the Spirit
and that the way the living of the Christian life then follows into the final resurrection verdict is that
that verdict will correspond to the present one, and will follow from (though not, in that sense, earned or merited by) the Spirit-led life of which Paul now speak
On Romans 10:5-11, Wright says
All who believe in the Messiah...are thereby 'fulfilling the law'; they are 'doing' it in the sense Deuteronomy 30 intended; and they thereby find "life," as 8:9-11 demonstrated, the life that Torah wanted to give but could not (7:10) the life that can now be spoken of more specifically as "salvation".


What Wright lines out here is almost exactly parallel to that which Phillips intimates about John 5:24.

A: Those who hear my word and believe him who sent me
A' Those who believe in the Messiah

B: has eternal life
B': have life

C: which the Jews thought they had by "searching scriptures" (John 5:39)
C': which the Law wanted to give, but couldn't

D: but Moses actually pointed ahead to the one who would give the Spirit, having life 'in himself', and thus remove the dead sinful life right now (5:25)

D': and they will receive resurrection after a life of 'doing good' (5:29) but now we find that the life we life in the Spirit is the antithesis of the sinful life, and it will end in resurrection

In sum, Wright's (and Paul's) view is that eternal life is a present tense experience/possession of those who have faith in Messiah.
Wright throws out the death of Christ and justification as soteriological.
Oh c'mon! The death of Christ is not soteriological for Wright? Its how God has dealt with sin! Can you offer a quote for this extraordinary claim?
 
Originally posted by pduggan
Originally posted by C. Matthew McMahonHe says, "Justification, at the last, will be on the basis of performance, not possession." (Wright, Romans, 440).

Present justification for Wright is not justification is ANY Reformed sense, or biblical exegetical sense for that matter. It is simply the nonsensical idea of "covenant faithfulness". In the future, God will look at believers covenantal faithfulness and then determine, in His final judgment of all things "to be considered" if it is in line with a complete "covenantal obedience." But remember, this has nothing to do with King Jesus. This is Romanism repackaged.
Wright says nothing about looking at the belivers 'covenant faithfulness" at the end as far as I can see. He speaks of present justification as that which provides assurance.

This is from the NPP by NT Wright (http://www.ntwrightpage.com/Wright_New_Perspectives.htm)
1. The Gospel

I begin where Romans begins "“ with the gospel. My proposal is this. When Paul refers to "˜the gospel´, he is not referring to a system of salvation, though of course the gospel implies and contains this, nor even to the good news that there now is a way of salvation open to all, but rather to the proclamation that the crucified Jesus of Nazareth has been raised from the dead and thereby demonstrated to be both Israel´s Messiah and the world´s true Lord. "˜The gospel´ is not "˜you can be saved, and here´s how´; the gospel, for Paul, is "˜Jesus Christ is Lord´.

This announcement draws together two things, in derivation and confrontation. First, Paul is clearly echoing the language of Isaiah: the message announced by the herald in Isaiah 40 and 52 has at last arrived. Saying "˜Jesus is Messiah and Lord´ is thus a way of saying, among other things, "˜Israel´s history has come to its climax´; or "˜Isaiah´s prophecy has come true at last´. This is powerfully reinforced by Paul´s insistence, exactly as in Isaiah, that this heraldic message reveals God´s righteousness, that is, God´s covenant faithfulness, about which more anon. Second, since the word "˜gospel´ was in public use to designate the message that Caesar was the Lord of the whole world, Paul´s message could not escape being confrontative: Jesus, not Caesar, is Lord, and at his name, not that of the Emperor, every knee shall bow. This aspect lies at the heart of what I have called "˜the fresh perspective on Paul´, the discovery of a subversive political dimension not as an add-on to Paul´s theology but as part of the inner meaning of "˜gospel´, "˜righteousness´, and so on.

For Paul, the announcement or proclamation of Jesus as Lord was itself the "˜word of God´ which carried power. Putting together the various things he says about the preaching of the gospel, the word, and the work of the Spirit, we arrive at the following position: when Paul comes into a town and declares that Jesus is Lord, no doubt explaining who Jesus was, the fact and significance of his death and resurrection, and so on, then the Spirit is at work, mysteriously, in the hearts and minds of the listeners, so that, when some of them believe in Jesus, Paul knows that this is not because of his eloquence or clever argument but because the announcement of Jesus as Lord functions as (in later technical language) the means of grace, the vehicle of the Spirit. And, since the gospel is the heraldic proclamation of Jesus as Lord, it is not first and foremost a suggestion that one might like to enjoy a new religious experience. Nor is it even the take-it-or-leave-it offer of a way to salvation. It is a royal summons to submission, to obedience, to allegiance; and the form that this submission and obedient allegiance takes is of course faith. That is what Paul means by "˜the obedience of faith´. Faith itself, defined conveniently by Paul as belief that Jesus is Lord and that God raised him from the dead, is the work of the Spirit, accomplished through the proclamation. "˜No-one can say "œJesus is Lord" except by the Holy Spirit.´ But this already jumps ahead to my fourth point, and before we get there we must take in the second and third.



Wright throws out the death of Christ and justification as soteriological.
Oh c'mon! The death of Christ is not soteriological for Wright? Its how God has dealt with sin! Can you offer a quote for this extraordinary claim?

Wright's justification, righteousness, faith are all ecclesiological not soteriological. Read his commentary on Romans, and the second paragraph of this article written by Wright: (http://www.ntwrightpage.com/Wright_New_Perspectives.htm).

Paul I think some people have asked you before but I didn't see your reply. Are you a proponent of NPP and/or FV?



[Edited on 1-4-2006 by Romans922]
 
Ok. So what in the quote says that Wright makes the believer's 'covenant faithfulness' the basis for salvation during the last judgment?

I see Wright saying that the gospel calls the believer to present faith.
It is a royal summons to submission, to obedience, to allegiance; and the form that this submission and obedient allegiance takes is of course faith. That is what Paul means by "˜the obedience of faith´. Faith itself, defined conveniently by Paul as belief that Jesus is Lord and that God raised him from the dead, is the work of the Spirit, accomplished through the proclamation.
There is nothing of 'faithfulness' in the Norman Shepherd sense. Mere faith is the thing that God ordains by the Spirit to respond to the gospel call. What on earth is wrong with that?

I also see no claim that Wright sees the death of Christ as non-soteriological. If anything, Wright puts too much soteriology into the mere death of Christ, putting the existential qualities of Justification with ecclesiology, as he is known to do. I'm challenging the accuracy of claiming that the death of Christ is non-soteriological for Wright. My interest is accuracy, not being a proponent of anything.

[Edited on 1-4-2006 by pduggan]

[Edited on 1-4-2006 by pduggan]
 
Originally posted by LadyFlynt
And yet you've dodged the last question...
Did I? Maybe I think labeling various unspecified generalities as 'NPP' or 'FV' aren't interesting or useful.

I am not an NPP or FV proponent, though I oppose bad critiques of them.

I find some value in them, as have even Rick Phillips and Ligon Duncan, D. A. Carson, Bryan Chapell, Sinclair Ferguson, and others.

I'm a proponent of Gaffin. I am a proponent of Murray, except where his view of the Law tends towards theonomy.

I am a proponent of Van Til.

I hold to a Calvinistic view of the sacramental efficacy, and agree with Boice and the executive pastor of Tenth Presbyterian Church, Marion Clark, in the book, edited by Ligon Duncan, celebrating Boice's theology of worship, that the sacraments, as seals, assure us of salvation.
 
Originally posted by pduggan
Originally posted by LadyFlynt
And yet you've dodged the last question...
Did I? Maybe I think labeling various unspecified generalities as 'NPP' or 'FV' aren't interesting or useful.

I am not an NPP or FV proponent, though I oppose bad critiques of them.

I find some value in them, as have even Rick Phillips and Ligon Duncan, D. A. Carson, Bryan Chapell, Sinclair Ferguson, and others.

I'm a proponent of Gaffin. I am a proponent of Murray, except where his view of the Law tends towards theonomy.

I am a proponent of Van Til.

I hold to a Calvinistic view of the sacramental efficacy, and agree with Boice and the executive pastor of Tenth Presbyterian Church, Marion Clark, in the book, edited by Ligon Duncan, celebrating Boice's theology of worship, that the sacraments, as seals, assure us of salvation.

Murray is not teaching heresy and redefining the Christian faith......Phillips hates FV, as does Duncan. You're becoming ambiguous Paul, much like the FV people. No one is able to tie them down. That which you hold to is orthodox. Singularly, Schlissel would as well be, or sound orthodox. Throw that altogether into a bowl and you have a heretical cake of sorts.
 
Originally posted by Scott Bushey
You're becoming ambiguous Paul, much like the FV people. No one is able to tie them down. That which you hold to is orthodox. Singularly, Schlissel would as well be, or sound orthodox.

How is Paul being "ambiguous"?

If you are going to make such a charge, you ought to at least back it up.


It sounds to me like your problem with Paul is the same as your problem with various theologians you don't like. You don't understand them because you refuse to listen to them in the first place.

Paul is not ambiguous. He plainly stated above that he holds to the WCF, and he clearly said that he believes a person receives soteriological benefit from simply having faith/belief in the death of Christ.




[Edited on 1-4-2006 by biblelighthouse]
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top