For Evangelicals Tempted by N. T. Wright’s Revision of Paul (Posted on August 15, 2010 by R. Scott Clark)
There seems to be a cadre of biblicist, evangelicals, who don’t know much about the medieval church (and who think it might even be cool to get back there in some ways), who don’t know much about the Reformation (except that it had an uncool, legal, fictional doctrine of justification), and who don’t know much about earlier versions of evangelicalism (an “evangelical” is someone who loves Jesus, right?), who like the doctrine of predestination (God is sovereign, so why does it matter what one says about justification, it comes out in the wash, right?), who have no real connection to Reformed churches (“Dude! We like couches, coffee, and candles”), who are tempted by N T Wright’s (“Man! He is so cool!) revision of Paul. It’s grounded in the first century, and that has to be good, right? It’s different. It’s hip and it’s socially relevant (after all, NTW has a plan to transform society and that has to be good, right?) This society of fairly uncritical supporters seem to be quite unaware that there are serious, even fatal, flaws in NTW’s revision of Paul.....
Click here to read Dr. Clark's post in it's entirety.
p.s.(Dr. Clark includes an extensive reading list to give us the background behind Wright's popular New Perspective on Paul )
6 comments:
I don't know anything about N.T. Wright, can you give us a break down of what is going on, Craig?
Sure thing, Beam, but briefly.
Every so often we Christians get a lapse of memory when it comes to church history, and somebody thinks they've discovered an essential truth that has sat there un-noticed for nineteen centuries or so. Wright thinks we have misunderstood St. Paul's teaching on the doctrine of Justification by Faith Alone.
This is nothing new, really. The confusion of Justification with Sanctification, (e.g. which part of our salvation is exclusively God's work, and which part involves our cooperation) is something that comes up regularly.
If you are interested, Scott Clark's reading list includes his previous posts on this. A look at one or two of the earlier ones should tell you all you need to know.
Thanks for taking notice.
Craig,
I read your article by R. Scott Clark, and all he says is basically, "We Reformed folks don't like N.T. Wright because he's a little too cool for us." So I clicked through on some of his links and all I got was either books or other people saying, "Yup, he's definitely way too cool for us." Could you please explain exactly how he's wrong because I know there's some disagreement about the doctrine of justification, but I have no idea what it is.
Incidentally, I have it on good authority from an atheist on AC that Jesus was "pretty cool." And the Pharisees were definitely "pretty uncool" even though they were tradition-bound. So without more information, I refuse to hold Wright's coolness against him.
Craig,
I want to make sure you know that my comment was tongue-in-cheek (although R. Scott Clark did emphasize Wright's coolness quite a bit ;), but I read a few more of the links and I still don't understand exactly what Wright's position is on justification.
Romans 5:1-2 seems pretty straightforward: justified by faith, peace with God through Christ, introduction by faith into a state of grace (which according to 2 Th. 2:13 and Heb. 12:14 must result in sanctification). What is the disagreement?
Hi Anette!!!
Sorry for the delay in responding. I just noticed your comments. I had a long hard day at work yesterday and after I got home it wasn't long before my head hit the pillow...and...zzzzzzzzzzzz.
Well, I am still in the process of getting up to speed on this issue, myself, so we are sort of in the same boat. I had heard that the controversy involved the implication (or was it an outright assertion?)that our works do have some meritorious value in our salvation, and that Bishop Wright was suggesting a different take on our understanding of the doctrine of justification, but I didn't pay much attention to the issue until recently.
In a nutshell, what NPP proposes is a radical overhall__ no, more like a re-invention, of the doctrines of justification and of imputation as held by the Protestant church for half a millenium. (Sounds bigger that "500 yrs." doesn't it?)
In the new perspective, the doctrine of justification is not about an individual's salvation; rather, it is about the identification of the group(s) that are in the covenant community. And, if I am reading Wright right, he denies that in justification our sins are imputed to Christ as His righteousness is imputed to us.
Now, I agree, as I am sure you do, that the truthfulness of a doctrine does not rest upon its being ancient, nor on the fact that so many people have thought it worthy of paying the ultimate price to maintain. But this seems to be saying that the church has not been teaching the correct gospel for all these centuries.
Ligonier dot org has a lot of articles on this controversy. Here is the transcript of a talk by Ligon Duncan. It is pretty lengthy, but if you just read from the section heading "Back to the New Perspective" up to the secton " II. What is the Historical Background of the New Perspective?" you will get the gist.
Re. R. Scott Clark
His sense of humor takes a little getting used to, but as one who has met and spoken with Dr. Clark, I can assure you that he is one too-cool Dude.
Here is an anecdote:
Once, when preaching at our church on 1 Corithians 10, Clark made a side-comment about the proper mode of baptism. He pointd out that when the waters of the Red Sea closed up, "It was Pharaoh's army that was immersed, God's people just got sprinkled." ; )
(Btw, I saw the verses from Matthew and Mark (+ Luke) that you brought up in response to Milo. Nice going. You are pretty "cool" yorself, Anette.)
Well, I am still in the process of getting up to speed on this issue, myself, so we are sort of in the same boat. I had heard that the controversy involved the implication (or was it an outright assertion?)that our works do have some meritorious value in our salvation, and that Bishop Wright was suggesting a different take on our understanding of the doctrine of justification, but I didn't pay much attention to the issue until recently.
See, Craig? Bishop Wright is nothing to worry about. Nobody understands him. :) I read a summary of his position, but it doesn't seem that different from what Piper taught in Future Grace. Piper was also criticized by some reviewers as glossing over the doctrine of justification by faith. But I think he handled it in a very biblical way.
Clearly, works-based salvation is unbiblical, but so is the modern over-emphasis on the "imputed righteousness" of Christ, almost like a legal fiction. If it doesn't translate into actual righteousness on our part, it does no good. We have to bear good fruit. But Andrew Murray does an excellent job of teaching how surrender to Christ is the only way to bear good fruit.
Re. R. Scott Clark
His sense of humor takes a little getting used to, but as one who has met and spoken with Dr. Clark, I can assure you that he is one too-cool Dude.
I'm sure he is. I'm glad you didn't take offense at my joke about Reformed people not being cool. Andrew Murray is my all-time favorite bearded dead guy, so I know that Reformed folks are way cool (even if they don't like "couches, coffee, and candles"). And of course you've demonstrated that too.
(Btw, I saw the verses from Matthew and Mark (+ Luke) that you brought up in response to Milo. Nice going. You are pretty "cool" yorself, Anette.)
Thanks. I know she addressed you, but whenever someone alleges a contradiction in the Bible I have to reply. I figured you wouldn't mind and would just jump in if you wanted to.
Post a Comment