"Calvinists" before Augustine?

[RamistThomist]

Good news, as think that there are some who are of a more liberal mindset regarding Jesus/scriptures within that same group!

He is friends with Packer but they don't necessarily believe all the same stuff. Wright is a New Testament historian. He is simply saying, "I am trying to do exegesis and this is what I think the text says."

His goal isn't to refute Reformedom. I doubt he cares either way. And the sad fact is, there aren't that many Reformed scholars at that level of academia. Everything bad we say about him (and I disagree with him on what 2TJ says) we also have to say about everyone who isn't a full 5 point Calvinists.

 

[Jake]

Saying within the same group for Anglicans is in some ways (especially relating to distinctions within theology) even more useless than saying anyone who is Presbyterian is in the same group. Granted, there is in theory more ecclesiastical unity (though Packer for example is no longer affiliated with the geographic body for his country, the Anglican Church of Canada; whereas Wright is still affiliated with the Church of England), but Anglicanism includes a wide range of expressions and related theologies: charismatics, evangelicals, reformed, anglo-catholic... and that's just among conservatives on issues like homosexuality. Not to mention complete social liberals and people who deny any semblance of Theism (like retired Episcopal Bishop Shelby Spong). Within Anglicanism, both Packer and Wright are in the reformed stream, though Packer is much more Puritan-influenced.

 

[RamistThomist]

Saying within the same group for Anglicans is in some ways (especially relating to distinctions within theology) even more useless than saying anyone who is Presbyterian is in the same group. Granted, there is in theory more ecclesiastical unity (though Packer for example is no longer affiliated with the geographic body for his country, the Anglican Church of Canada; whereas Wright is still affiliated with the Church of England), but Anglicanism includes a wide range of expressions and related theologies: charismatics, evangelicals, reformed, anglo-catholic... and that's just among conservatives on issues like homosexuality. Not to mention complete social liberals and people who deny any semblance of Theism (like retired Episcopal Bishop Shelby Spong). Within Anglicanism, both Packer and Wright are in the reformed stream, though Packer is much more Puritan-influenced.

I know, and I mentioned that Wright is on the more 'conservative' end on sexual ethics, abortion, authority of Scripture, reality of the supernatural, etc.

 

[Jake]

I know, and I mentioned that Wright is on the more 'conservative' end on sexual ethics, abortion, authority of Scripture, reality of the supernatural, etc.

I'm responding more to Dachaser/building on what you said. No disagreements here.

 

[Dachaser]

Saying within the same group for Anglicans is in some ways (especially relating to distinctions within theology) even more useless than saying anyone who is Presbyterian is in the same group. Granted, there is in theory more ecclesiastical unity (though Packer for example is no longer affiliated with the geographic body for his country, the Anglican Church of Canada; whereas Wright is still affiliated with the Church of England), but Anglicanism includes a wide range of expressions and related theologies: charismatics, evangelicals, reformed, anglo-catholic... and that's just among conservatives on issues like homosexuality. Not to mention complete social liberals and people who deny any semblance of Theism (like retired Episcopal Bishop Shelby Spong). Within Anglicanism, both Packer and Wright are in the reformed stream, though Packer is much more Puritan-influenced.

Dr Packer seems to be much closer to reformed theology on the whole, correct?

 

[arapahoepark]

Dr Packer seems to be much closer to reformed theology on the whole, correct?

Yes.

And honestly as for Wright he does not exegete well. We all have presuppositions but his bleed through like he was shot in the heart. I have read a lot of him. The influence of Sanders is evident and he tries to nicely recreate Paul and Second temple Judaism that was WAAAAAAAY more diverse than he allows. Makes nice historical categories (it is useful for some purposes as I know from my senior thesis) but, awful exegesis.

 

[Dachaser]

Yes.

And honestly as for Wright he does not exegete well. We all have presuppositions but his bleed through like he was shot in the heart. I have read a lot of him. The influence of Sanders is evident and he tries to nicely recreate Paul and Second temple Judaism that was WAAAAAAAY more diverse than he allows. Makes nice historical categories (it is useful for some purposes as I know from my senior thesis) but, awful exegesis.

Is that why he so strongly objects to how calvin especially understanding the Cross, as he thinks Calvin read way much back into it than was the intent of Paul?
Wright sees Paul as speaking to the Judaism of that time, and now what Calvin saw him reacting towards?

he also seems to hold to the Judaism of time of Jesus as being still viable, but the NT seems to show that it was a failed system at that time?

 

[RamistThomist]

Is that why he so strongly objects to how calvin especially understanding the Cross, as he thinks Calvin read way much back into it than was the intent of Paul?
Wright sees Paul as speaking to the Judaism of that time, and now what Calvin saw him reacting towards?

he also seems to hold to the Judaism of time of Jesus as being still viable, but the NT seems to show that it was a failed system at that time?

He never really attacks Calvin directly (and indeed he has said he thinks Calvin had a better reading of the Law than later Lutherans did; not getting into that now).

Of course Paul wrote to the Judaism of his time. Every author has an audience and a context.

Trent is right, though. Even Sanders and Co. have to admit that many rabbis held to a works-based/merit Judaism.

 

[Dachaser]

He never really attacks Calvin directly (and indeed he has said he thinks Calvin had a better reading of the Law than later Lutherans did; not getting into that now).

Of course Paul wrote to the Judaism of his time. Every author has an audience and a context.

Trent is right, though. Even Sanders and Co. have to admit that many rabbis held to a works-based/merit Judaism.

The Pharisees and other jewish religious leaders all seemed to be holding to the good works to God, keeping the law, and not as Wright assumes, else why would Paul in Galatians be so set against their views on justified by keeping the law?

 

[RamistThomist]

The Pharisees and other jewish religious leaders all seemed to be holding to the good works to God, keeping the law, and not as Wright assumes, else why would Paul in Galatians be so set against their views on justified by keeping the law?

Wright doesn't deny that the Pharisees saw themselves as doing good works per the Law. The question before the House, so to speak, is whether the Pharisees saw their good works as "meriting Heaven."

 

[Dachaser]

Wright doesn't deny that the Pharisees saw themselves as doing good works per the Law. The question before the House, so to speak, is whether the Pharisees saw their good works as "meriting Heaven."

Paul saw that they were on a works based religion, as that was what he hammered against so much in Romans and Galatians, correct?

 

[RamistThomist]

Paul saw that they were on a works based religion, as that was what he hammered against so much in Romans and Galatians, correct?

Yes. No one disputes that. The real question is whether "works of the law" refers to the entirety of the Law or to Jewish identity-markers.

 

[Dachaser]

Yes. No one disputes that. The real question is whether "works of the law" refers to the entirety of the Law or to Jewish identity-markers.

Think that Paul would argue that it was works based righteousness , as they were trying to get merit with God by keeping the law in regards to salvation!

 

[arapahoepark]

Think that Paul would argue that it was works based righteousness , as they were trying to get merit with God by keeping the law in regards to salvation!

This is getting off topic. But it goes back to whether not Second temple Judaism believed in works righteousness. As I have said before it is true. Others like EP Sander, Dunn, Wright, do not believe so. As for them, Paul had to be arguing against nationalism/racism, otherwise he'd be incoherent (as even many scholars who accept Sanders' thesis note). They want to save Paul much in the same way Theistic Evolutionists want to save Genesis.

 

[arapahoepark]

I also must note Dunn and Wright have moderated their views. I have no doubt it is due to their being wrong and recognizing it. However, it is still imbalanced compared to the Reformed (and pretty much every other Protestant) view.

 

[RamistThomist]

Think that Paul would argue that it was works based righteousness , as they were trying to get merit with God by keeping the law in regards to salvation!

What aspect of the Law were they keeping? The entire three-fold Law? Just the moral law? Just the ceremonial? A combination of ceremonial and civil?

 

[Dachaser]

What aspect of the Law were they keeping? The entire three-fold Law? Just the moral law? Just the ceremonial? A combination of ceremonial and civil?

They seemed to being indicating that one was in a right standing before God by doing the works of the law, had the mindset of the rich young ruler that met Jesus!

 

[Dachaser]

I also must note Dunn and Wright have moderated their views. I have no doubt it is due to their being wrong and recognizing it. However, it is still imbalanced compared to the Reformed (and pretty much every other Protestant) view.

They no longer hold that Calvin and Luther were both wrong on this issue?

 

[RamistThomist]

They seemed to being indicating that one was in a right standing before God by doing the works of the law, had the mindset of the rich young ruler that met Jesus!

Who are "they"? True, I think the parable of the rich young ruler throws a monkey-wrench into Sanders' view, but that's not actually what I am getting at.

Wright doesn't think you are saved by doing good, Roman Catholic-esque works. He says, rather, that the Pharisees beleived justification came by doing Jewish identity works of the law.

 

[RamistThomist]

They no longer hold that Calvin and Luther were both wrong on this issue?

Wright never actually identified and rejected Calvin's view. He said Calvin was closer to the right view than Luther.

 

[Dachaser]

Who are "they"? True, I think the parable of the rich young ruler throws a monkey-wrench into Sanders' view, but that's not actually what I am getting at.

Wright doesn't think you are saved by doing good, Roman Catholic-esque works. He says, rather, that the Pharisees beleived justification came by doing Jewish identity works of the law.

Paul was not addressing that issue though, as he seemed to be telling us how to get justified and reconciled back to God by receiving Jesus as the Lord?

 

[Dachaser]

Wright never actually identified and rejected Calvin's view. He said Calvin was closer to the right view than Luther.

He did indicate that the reformers were misreading and misunderstand Paul though in a big way, correct?

 

[RamistThomist]

He did indicate that the reformers were misreading and misunderstand Paul though in a big way, correct?

Yes, but there are degrees of misreading something. And I do think Calvin had a better understanding than Luther, but I don't line up 100% with any one person. Does that mean I think Calvin is wrong? I wouldn't put it like that.

Does he disagree with them? Sure. I think we all do at points. That's an entirely different connotation than saying "Calvin is wrong."

 

[RamistThomist]

Paul was not addressing that issue though, as he seemed to be telling us how to get justified and reconciled back to God by receiving Jesus as the Lord?

NT Wright would agree with the portion of the quote that I underlined. Yes, it does get confusing.

(P1) If the Pharisees taught that one is justified by keeping identity-works of the law (and I am fairly certain that the Pharisees would have believed that proposition--it's sort of like a reverse political Zionism that we see today), then obviously Paul would have attacked that.

I think one can agree with the (P1) without holding to the following proposition:

(P2) Works of the law = Jewish boundary markers.

I do believe that the Pharisees taught (P1). That's not to far from the demonic passages in the Talmud and political Zionism today. But I don't hold to (P2).

 

[Dachaser]

Yes, but there are degrees of misreading something. And I do think Calvin had a better understanding than Luther, but I don't line up 100% with any one person. Does that mean I think Calvin is wrong? I wouldn't put it like that.

Does he disagree with them? Sure. I think we all do at points. That's an entirely different connotation than saying "Calvin is wrong."

NT wright seems to hold that how the reformers viewed Justification in a way not in harmony with Paul though. correct? Church has had that wrong all this time?

 

[Dachaser]

NT Wright would agree with the portion of the quote that I underlined. Yes, it does get confusing.

(P1) If the Pharisees taught that one is justified by keeping identity-works of the law (and I am fairly certain that the Pharisees would have believed that proposition--it's sort of like a reverse political Zionism that we see today), then obviously Paul would have attacked that.

I think one can agree with the (P1) without holding to the following proposition:

(P2) Works of the law = Jewish boundary markers.

I do believe that the Pharisees taught (P1). That's not to far from the demonic passages in the Talmud and political Zionism today. But I don't hold to (P2).

You would then be agreeing that Calvin and the other reformers did actually catch what Paul was recording down for us, that he was indeed addressing how sinner is justified before god, on what basis then?

 

[RamistThomist]

NT wright seems to hold that how the reformers viewed Justification in a way not in harmony with Paul though. correct? Church has had that wrong all this time?

He said the Reformers gave a good answer to the wrong question.

As to the church getting it wrong, which church? The church got it quite wrong for at least 1,000 years before Luther. Mind you, I think NT Wright is wrong, but we shouldn't say, "So the church got it wrong all this time." That's sort of the point of Luther.

 

[RamistThomist]

You would then be agreeing that Calvin and the other reformers did actually catch what Paul was recording down for us, that he was indeed addressing how sinner is justified before god, on what basis then?

Yes. I agree with Calvin. I don't think, howver, that Calvin exhausted all of systematic theology.

 

[arapahoepark]

You would then be agreeing that Calvin and the other reformers did actually catch what Paul was recording down for us, that he was indeed addressing how sinner is justified before god, on what basis then?

I must say that it is dangerous to grapple in polemics before you know what you believe and why, especially against a loosely defined area like the new perspective.

 

[Dachaser]

Yes. I agree with Calvin. I don't think, howver, that Calvin exhausted all of systematic theology.

I would agree with that, as there have been MANY respected and notable theologians since that time in the reformed and Baptist circles...
Was just using him as the example of how the reformers on the whole looked at justification of the sinner before God...W