After spending some time dialoguing about N.T. Wright with my brother over the weekend, I was reminded of the immensely volatile discussion regarding his views on 'justification,' especially in light of how the denomination in which I minister (PCA) handled the subject at our last General Assembly.
Admittedly, I do not claim to have fully wrapped my brain around Wright's theology--his intellectual prowess is too great for me to access. However, after reading some more of both Wright and his opponents I have realized that one thing that Wright seems to be attempting to accomplish is a more biblical understanding of the importance of our character and behavior after we have bent the knee to Jesus' lordship.
In the traditional formulations there is a definite conflict between justification that inititiates our salvation, the justification in the sense that James uses it, and the justification that will take place at the great white throne.
Whether he arrives at a biblical conclusion I don't know. However, he does seem to synthesize these in a better manner than I have seen before. Does he go too far? Perhaps. But I don't believe his position abandons orthodoxy as many reformed theologians contend.
One thing that I have never been satisfied with is the way our tradition handles our 'works.' I am in the middle of a study compiling all of the passages just in the New Testament that reference our works, the judgement at the end of the ages, the potential of falling away, the urging and primacy of remaining faithful to the very end. The evidence is very clear that the biblical authors spill the preponderence of their ink on the life that follows the initiation of salvation than the events leading up to and including that moment.
It seems that in our reaction to a merit-based earning of God's approval, we have swung the pendulum so far that we have crashed through a window and have opened it up to a potential risk of reducing the importance of our remaining faithful to our call. I am suggesting that there might be another way that neither reduces God's sovereign grace (and our our desperate need due to our sin) nor our call to faithfulness until the very end. Pelagianism and semi-pelagianism fail at the former and I think our tradition has largely failed at the latter. I don't yet know if Wright has found it, but at least he has confronted the issue.
In the traditional formulations there is a definite conflict between justification that inititiates our salvation, the justification in the sense that James uses it, and the justification that will take place at the great white throne.
Whether he arrives at a biblical conclusion I don't know. However, he does seem to synthesize these in a better manner than I have seen before. Does he go too far? Perhaps. But I don't believe his position abandons orthodoxy as many reformed theologians contend.
One thing that I have never been satisfied with is the way our tradition handles our 'works.' I am in the middle of a study compiling all of the passages just in the New Testament that reference our works, the judgement at the end of the ages, the potential of falling away, the urging and primacy of remaining faithful to the very end. The evidence is very clear that the biblical authors spill the preponderence of their ink on the life that follows the initiation of salvation than the events leading up to and including that moment.
It seems that in our reaction to a merit-based earning of God's approval, we have swung the pendulum so far that we have crashed through a window and have opened it up to a potential risk of reducing the importance of our remaining faithful to our call. I am suggesting that there might be another way that neither reduces God's sovereign grace (and our our desperate need due to our sin) nor our call to faithfulness until the very end. Pelagianism and semi-pelagianism fail at the former and I think our tradition has largely failed at the latter. I don't yet know if Wright has found it, but at least he has confronted the issue.
I am including a link to the clearest, most succinct, and most accessible article by Wright on the topic.
http://www.ntwrightpage.com/Wright_New_Perspectives.htm
I would like to know your thoughts. . . .
1 comment:
Wright can certainly be wrong on some thing, for Ben Witherington III is clearl about this in his commentary on Romans. I find Wright's work neither too sophiticated nor too biblical to comprehend. I think he struggles with clarity, evinced by his stay on Colbert repor. Colbert thinks clearly but speaks inconsistenly,for we can speak about Religious Epistemology this side of heaven--regardless of situation, stature, or Dr. Pepper status: Emory is a very good place to discuss these type issues.
Doctors can be wrong in any field, and I've been told that in a variety of ways many an Orthopeadic specialist out of the Brandon, FL, area, quote: "Don't go back to the Chiropractor who thought you had a broken neck." This bone specialist seems not know how to read X-ray, inferring from a shadow that I had a crack in my neck; of course, this was important to me at the time, so it to my a lot of my energy.
best Wishes.
Lawrence.
Post a Comment