Romans in a Week

[Scott]

I am going through NT Wright's tape series "Romans in a Week" and can see why people have problems with him. He says that the gospel is not justification by faith alone but is rather the belief that "Jesus is Lord." Although, in fairness, he does seem to affirm some sort of justification by faith alone as a consequence of his view of the gospel (he is not real clear on thjis point so far).

He also takes shots as traditional protestant understandings of the use of Abraham in Rom. 4 as an example of justification by faith alone and shots at the nature of the opponents being refuted by Paul in Romans (they are not works righteousness legalists according to Wright).

He also interprets "righteousness of God" to not refer to righteousness from God (imputation) but rather righteousness towards God.

Does the world really need yet another theological novelty?

Has anyone else gone through this series? I would be interested in knowing your thoughts. Perhaps a discussion would be interesting.

 

[RamistThomist]

It can get confusing on what he is trying to say. I am listening to the point/counterpoint between him and Richard Gaffin. Wright does say at times that he affirms "such and such" doctrine, but not in a way that we would. He goes out of his way to critique Catholicism, especially their traditionalism, but makes one wonder what he is offering instead.

His stuff on Jesus, the Kingdom, Caesar's cult, and the Parousia are all pretty good. I have read What St Paul Really Said and found stuff in there that wasn't too different from what Redemptive-Historical likes would say. Of course, I have obvious problems with several things in there. (Interestingly enough and against liberal scholarship, he defends translating hilasterion as "propitiation over against the liberal legacy of CH Dodd.)

Ironically, one of the best popular level critiques of Wright comes from Doug Wilson (look for "NT Wrights and Wrongs").

Guy Waters is good but his book deals more with the overall thrust of the NPP. It is good in outlining the various views within NPP but is limited on interacting with Wright, as the book makes clear. I think a more detailed focus on Wright is needed. Dunn, EP Sanders, and others, while part of the NPP, are not going to tempt Reformed folks due to their questionable orthodoxy on other doctrines.

Wright on the other hand is a brilliant mind, skilled communicator, has publicly roasted liberals in debate, and militantly affirms the authority of Scripture. It is not hard to see why some are enamored of him. I am quite tempted to dismiss Sanders/Dunn and focus on Wright entirely. To simply dismiss him as "heretic" does not equate in a refutation and will convince nobody on the scholarly level.

Waters has done a real good job but more needs to come out focusing on Wright himself. I can't wait for the book by Barcley/Duncan to come out.

And we have nothing to fear from Wright on the Resurrection and the Historical Jesus. Those books are nothing short of masterful.

[Edited on 6--27-05 by Draught Horse]

 

[Scott]

Jacob: Thanks - your view sounds reasonable and balanced.

 

[RamistThomist]

Originally posted by Scott
Jacob: Thanks - your view sounds reasonable and balanced.

There were several NPP people on my campus and I tried to refute their views without really knowing what they were (that's possible, but tough to do). I soon found out that they were just parroting what Wright had said and really didn't understand him. At the same time, liberals on campus were denying the historicity of the gospels, etc. and I knew that Wright had done strong work on that area. I said unto myself, "Self, you are committed to your Reformed theology, having read both Luther and Calvin. Do you think you can critique this challenge to justification?"

So, I decided to read Wright. I soon found out that he is a masterful opponent. He is polished and can write extremely well (Brief aside: have you ever read mainline Biblical studies? There are few things in the world less exciting than that. Wright at least is excited about what he is writing.). Even more, he is a highly talented public speaker. We have a worthy opponent in front of us.

I can see possible chinks in his armour and so am beginning a long process in evaluating his works. I am avoiding throwing around verses like Galatians 1:9 hoping that stops him in his tracks. If I do that I really don't say anything new or meaningful in the argument. We do not argue by having our first premise as "Your doctrine is heretical." That is a (possible) conclusion. It is not a premise. We might come to that verse as a conclusion in our argument but if we begin the dispute with that verse we have just begged the question.

Those are my thoughts at the moment.

[Edited on 6--27-05 by Draught Horse]

 

[Scott]

Jacob (and others): What are good resources from Wright on the historicity of the gospels, opposition to the Jesus seminar, problems with higher criticism and the like?

 

[RamistThomist]

Originally posted by Scott
Jacob (and others): What are good resources from Wright on the historicity of the gospels, opposition to the Jesus seminar, problems with higher criticism and the like?

The first 200 pages of Wright's Jesus and the Victory of God utterly bomb the Jesus Seminar. He shows that the Jesus Seminar straitjackets isolated sayings from Christ to make those sayings fit their anti-Regean politics. Seriously, I highly recommend JVG for its annihilation of the Jesus Seminar and for its...okay, to be honest, the book is nothing short of sheer brilliance. Yeah, perhaps he does have heterodox views on Justification, but on the person and ministry of Christ, he is beyond comparison. Sure, I cringe at a few things he says, but that's life.

 

[Scott]

I am through most of the tape series, although not quite done. I would definitely not recommend Wright to the ordinary, rank and file Christian (one who does not think critically), as he routinely interprets passages in ways at variance with Reformed doctrines. Romans 9:15 and the example of Esau and Jacob is an example. He criticizes the reformed interpretation as something "abstract" when the potter images of the Bible refer to concrete problems with Israel. He does not really develop what he means in any detail in the tape series. But, anyone that is one of many examples. Of course, Romans 3 and 4 do not refer to works righetousness to him. In any event, he undermines (not convincingly in my opinion) many of the core passages Reformed use to establish their doctrines.

I still can't get over how he basically thinks that everyone prior to him in the history of the Church has missed this stuff.

[Edited on 7-7-2005 by Scott]

 

[RamistThomist]

Scott, that's pretty much the best critique of Wright. He is amazingly flippant at the historic position on such doctrines. That being said, he needs to be read and interacted with.

 

[Scott]

I have heard Reformed followers of Wright suggest that his reinterpretation of Paul does not necessarily contradict Reformed doctrine, although it does undermine the exegetical basis for it. I see what they mean - in Romans at least he has reinterpreted passages that are key to a Reformed understanding. Without them, Reformed theology is left without much of an exegetical basis.