NT Wright on Paul

Discussion in 'Federal Vision/New Perspectives' started by openairboy, Jul 21, 2005.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. openairboy

    openairboy Puritan Board Freshman

    I will siimply go back to my earlier illustration on preterism. MacArthur wants to argue in the same fashion against preterism. If one accepts the preterist hermeneutic then in a generation everyone will end up a hyper-preterist. It's just a bad argument that may try to scare a few people and keep a few in lock step, but it doens't really get anyone anywhere.

    My Reformend theology isn't out of preference, but, I believe, upon Biblical exegesis. I just disagree that some traditional proof-texts are addressing that particular issue. So, I fully believe that Jesus will return bodily, I just don't believe Mt. 24 proves that. I still believe in the imputation of Christ's righteousness, I just don't believe 2 Co. 5:21 teaches that.

    openairboy

    [Edited on 7-25-2005 by openairboy]
     
  2. Contra_Mundum

    Contra_Mundum Pilgrim, Alien, Stranger Staff Member

    Wright doesn't seem to think that Romans 5 teaches it...

    And I don't agree that juxtaposing two sets of doctrinal disputes (preterism and justification) equates to the methodological agreement you find. For one thing, arguing about the timing, etc. of the second coming has been a favorite hobby in the church for about as long as its been in existence. Even today there is broad diversity within theological camps that maintain general unity on more central matters.

    Second, it's pure dispensationalism (which J.McA. still staunchly holds to) that sees Mt. 24 as a cornerstone text on the Second Coming. Dispensationalism needs large scale texts, with massive amount of data to sift through in order to fill in all the details of Jesus 2nd, 3rd, 4th (how many returns is it?) coming, tribulations, raptures, reconstructed temples--you know. But without a commitment to that school, why should his similar sounding concern seem even remotely relevant? The simplicity of the doctrine of Christ's future return at the end, to judge and renovate everything isn't dependent on Mt. 24 at all.

    The bottom line is, I can pull out book length treatments of the Second Coming that are both old and new, and relevant in either case, and a preterist view of Mt. 24 won't change the doctrine they teach. The same cannot be said for the reinterpretation of many important texts by NPP or FV proponents that eliminate them as keystones supporting the doctrine of Justification. I think the construction metaphor is quite apt. Witingly or not, these men are pulling stones out of place, without due consideration for the whole theological structure. They love "the walls of Zion," but they seem unconcerned that their labors below have the potential to bring them down.

    in my opinion, they owe the Reformed world a robust defense of the doctrine of justification, that is equal support by other means than the ones they are removing, and a demonstration that their "excavations" or explorations do not in fact leave us with a weaker doctrine or complete theological edifice. I reiterate, this is a glaring omission from their labors to date.

    [Edited on 7-25-2005 by Contra_Mundum]
     
  3. openairboy

    openairboy Puritan Board Freshman

    ok?

    Uhm, from your perspective, but not the Dispensational. From my perspective the whole "participationist" school easily handles the imputation of Christ's righteousness. It isn't contingent on 2 Co. 5 or even Romans 5 for that matter.


    I disagree.

    Who does?

    openairboy
     
  4. JohnV

    JohnV Puritan Board Post-Graduate

    What I'm getting from this discussion is that Wright is advocating a sort of double sanctification, much like Shepherd was calling for a double jusfification. Is he suggesting that the Bible itself is a growing thing, growing in righteousness as we, the Christians, grow from generation to generation? Is he suggesting, for example, that the Bible means more to us than it did in Luther's time, simply because we are more down the road of sanctification when it comes to understanding the Bible? It seeems to me I hear that suggestion coming through. Or am I misunderstanding?
     
  5. PuritanCovenanter

    PuritanCovenanter Moderator Staff Member

    Does he or does he not believe in a doctrine called Covenantal Nomism? In my discussions with my friend he does. He believes that you are saved by grace, but then you must keep the law to stay in the faith.

    And I still disagree with his redefining the righteousness of God as being covenantal faithfulness. Remember the antithesis. He became sin. We become the righteousness of God. Paul was telling us he was an ambassador so that we could become the righteousness of God. This isn't that hard to understand. He was saying I am an ambassador of Christ. Here is the message. He became sin so that you could become righteous. Not the covenantal faithfulness of God. A simple message.

    We are sin. He took it and gave us rightousness. Not covenantal faithfulness. Covenantal Faithfulness would not reconcile us. What according to the passage does reconcile us? He became sin so that we could become the righteousness of God. We are found Perfect and complete in Christ. Sounds like reconciliation to me.

    [Edited on 7-25-2005 by puritancovenanter]
     
  6. openairboy

    openairboy Puritan Board Freshman

    No, I don't believe Wright is saying that at all.

    openairboy
     
  7. AdamM

    AdamM Puritan Board Freshman

    Keith, I am curious if are you are indicating a rejection of all the traditional Reformed proof texts for imputation or simply 2 Corinthians 5.21? If it is all the traditional texts, then where in the Scriptures would you find support for imputation as expressed in WCF 11, HC 60 and Belgic Art. 22?

    Thanks.

     
  8. openairboy

    openairboy Puritan Board Freshman

    Where does Wright teach this? Just be sure you know what HE believes before you readily throw-out the heresy bomb.

    We'll just have to disagree. I'm not convinced the point suddenly changes from the Apostolic ministry to how individual's stand before God, esp. given the previous 2 chapers, esp. 4:7+. Also, to jump from how an individual is accredited righteousness to "working together with him, then..." doesn't follow.

    I'm convinced this section 2:13-6:10 is defending the Apostolic ministry.

    openairboy
     
  9. PuritanCovenanter

    PuritanCovenanter Moderator Staff Member

    Then where is the flow for us becoming New Creatures in Christ? Couldn't he be defending his ministry and the message which is why he has a ministry from the LORD? In other words if you are going to defend the ministry you probably are going to defend it's purpose also. That being the gospel message. His name shall be called Jesus, For He shall save his people from there sin.

    There still is a redefinition problem here you are not addressing? In what lexicon is the word translated righteousness defined faithfulness, or righteouness of God defined covenantal faithfulness? I could be incorrect sense I have limited abilities.

    [Edited on 7-25-2005 by puritancovenanter]
     
  10. PuritanCovenanter

    PuritanCovenanter Moderator Staff Member

    I believe it is in his second temple law court teaching. I will find out.
     
  11. openairboy

    openairboy Puritan Board Freshman

    Thanks for the good question. First, I think 1 Co. 1:30 is the best "proof-text" for this issue (At work so can't search through texts, but there are others. And, I have a lot more work in Romans before I say too much there). Second, I think it is a doctrine that is properly derived from the life of Jesus Christ, from his baptism in identification with sinners to rising for our vindication. Everything that is true of Christ is true of me, because I am in him. In both a "positional" sense ('raised with him in the heavenlies') and what is being worked out in my life. Third, this may be where I step away from certain camps of "Reformed" theology, at least as it is centered on an individuals "justification", when I read through the Gospels I don't find "how is an individual made right before God?" as the central topic. When I read through Acts, I don't find this as the central issue. I'm not saying it isn't an issue, but it doesn't rise as the centrality of all things. Jesus Christ, who God raised from the dead, is the true Lord of all is central. So, why should I find it to be Paul's central theme? I don't. So, reading from the Gospels and moving into Paul, it changes the light in which I read him.

    Personally, I think we assume what Paul means and then work backwards to Jesus, seeking to find "how is an individual made right before God?" In the end, I think much of Reformed theology is way too man centered and not Christocentric, despite claims to the contrary.

    I will say, when I read through the Bible I find the central theme as the Lordship of YHWH. From Gen. 1 to Rev. 22 the Lordship of YHWH is central. A friend of mine (a graduate of WTS) said, "The central theme of the Bible is how an individual is made right before God." I disagree with that, which effects the way we view various texts. That doesn't mean I disagree with some of his conclusions, but it often means we arrive there differently.

    openairboy
     
  12. JohnV

    JohnV Puritan Board Post-Graduate

    Then what could he mean by "sanctification" if he has changed the meaning of "righteousness"?


    [Edited on 7-25-2005 by JohnV]
     
  13. openairboy

    openairboy Puritan Board Freshman

    Hi John,

    Honestly, I don't recall having read anything by Wright on sanctificaiton. A more thorough Pauline work is due out in Sept/Oct by him, so maybe that will shed more light on the issue.

    openairboy
     
  14. Robin

    Robin Puritan Board Junior

    Hey guys,

    Here are some better resources....

    http://www.wscal.edu/resources/West...rnia-Foolishness_of_the_Gospel_Conference.htm

    http://www.banneroftruth.org/pages/articles/article_detail.php?186

    http://www.wscal.edu/resources/Justification_Faculty_Symposium.htm

    Robin
     
  15. PuritanCovenanter

    PuritanCovenanter Moderator Staff Member

    openairboy
    Robin, I have since tried not to post links but discuss this from the texts and knowledge I have already. I agreed with Keith that playing link tag is somewhat troublesome sometimes.

    They are good though.

    [Edited on 7-25-2005 by puritancovenanter]
     
  16. AdamM

    AdamM Puritan Board Freshman

    Keith thank you for your reply. I think the interaction on this thread is proving to be very helpful. I have some thoughts in response, but I won't be able to pull them all together until tomorrow, but in the meantime, I wanted to at least acknowledge your answer.
     
  17. JohnV

    JohnV Puritan Board Post-Graduate

    Its just that growing in righteosness is what we normally call sanctification, the work of the Holy Spirit. But with the redefinition of "righteousness", that too would have to have a new meaning. For example, if growing in righteousness is growing in faithfulness in the covenant, as different from conforming to God's image, then sanctification would also not include growing holiness so much as fuller membership.

    Just thinking out loud, so to speak.
     
  18. Robin

    Robin Puritan Board Junior

    Martin,

    You have a good point, "link tag" might not be useful... It depends on the link, perhaps. Some of us that refer links attempt to broaden the understanding of the discussion with solid and responsible material; and also to provide the reasons behind the our statements. (There is a difference between opinion and argument. By argument-I do not mean quarrel.)

    An opinion is completely useless because it is subjective. An argument can be good or bad depending on the reasons supporting it; be they accurate or erroneous. Calvin speaks of "sophist arguments, not worthy of response" - because they are mere opinion, having no reasoning behind them.

    I have close, personal ties with most links I've referred. That might be different for others? In any case, linking for me, is not about showing-off....it is sharing information with a desire to edify others, longing that the encouragement or wisdom I have received might be passed on. I am prepared to argue/interact with links I refer, and am content to do so.

    With respect,

    Robin ;)
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page