Yeah, I said as much to Dr. White. This interaction was about two hours or so too short. I would, however, say almost the opposite in regards to terminology, i.e., he uses Reformed language to espouse a differing idea, especially in regards to imputation. The concepts he promotes rather remind me of the energies/essence distinction of old.I wish they had more time to discuss the topic. The 90 minute program wasn't nearly enough to do the topic justice.
I have to be honest. I still don't exactly get what N.T. Wright REALLY believes. It's almost like he's talking about the same old thing we've always believed but using slightly different words. Ugh.
Yes, actually that more accurately reflects the idea I was trying to get across. Uses the same lingo to say something else.I would, however, say almost the opposite in regards to terminology, i.e., he uses Reformed language to espouse a differing idea, especially in regards to imputation. The concepts he promotes rather remind me of the energies/essence distinction of old.
This is why I felt the interaction was too short, though it was beginning to be helpful toward the end. Wright used a phrase that needed nailing down, namely that Christ's work places us on "Resurrection ground." This was one of the phrases I had in mind when I introduced the Eastern energies/essence distinction. Wright would never say that we absorb the energies of God, nor would he use the term "deification." However, underneath the sheepish clothing of his rephrasing, I see those ideas lurking.Yes, actually that more accurately reflects the idea I was trying to get across. Uses the same lingo to say something else.I would, however, say almost the opposite in regards to terminology, i.e., he uses Reformed language to espouse a differing idea, especially in regards to imputation. The concepts he promotes rather remind me of the energies/essence distinction of old.
Unfortunately, I don't understand exactly what the "something else" is that he is actually trying to say!
He actually sounded a lot more "both/and" in this audio. I don't have the exact quote, but he explicitly said that you can't separate soteriology from covenant membership. Also, in response to James White's question about how he'd counsel a believer who was doubting his salvation, Wright said he'd urge them to keep looking to Christ and trusting in His work on the cross (I thought he'd add "and resurrection," but he didn't!)Wright seems to have found a nice facet and declared it to be the whole diamond.
And Tom Schreiner:But is Romans 2:13b a hypothetical statement? When Paul says, "Not the hearers of the Law are just before God, but the doers of the Law will be justified," does he really mean: They would be justified if there were any, but there aren't any "doers of the law." Or to put it another way, Does "doers of the Law" refer to sinless, perfect law-keepers? Could Paul call a person a "doer of the law" who sins, but who loves God and loves the law and hates his own sins and confesses them and casts himself on the mercy of God revealed in the law itself?
I think he could. And I think he does. So I believe verse 13 means: Not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the ones who will be acquitted at the last judgment will be those who 1) love God's law, and 2) depend on his help to live according to the truth that they have, and 3) trust God for his mercy when they stumble.
"Justification refers to God’s verdict of not guilty on the day of judgment (Rom 2:13). God’s eschatological verdict has now been announced in advance for those who believe in Jesus Christ. Those who have been justified by the blood of Christ will be saved from God’s wrath at the eschaton (Rom 5:9). God will announce publicly to the world the verdict of not guilty on the last day, though this verdict already stands for those who belong to Christ Jesus. The forensic and legal character of the term ‘justify’ derives from the verbal form if sdq in the OT. Judges are to declare the righteous innocent and condemn the wicked (Deut 25:1; 2 Sam 15:4; 1 Kings 8:31-32:2; 2 Chron 6:23; Prov 17:15; Isa 5:23). Judges do not ‘make’ anyone righteous. They pronounce on what is in fact the case – if they are righteous judges. In other words, the verbal form belongs in the forensic realm. For example, God will pass judgment on whether Paul is acquitted before the Lord on judgment day (1 Cor 4:4). When Paul says that the doers of the law will be justified (Rom 2:13), a declaration of righteousness is intended. God will pass judgment as to whether people are righteous, whether they have done what is right and good. The uniqueness of the Pauline gospel surfaces in the truth that God declares those who are sinners to be in the right before him if they trust in Jesus Christ for their salvation" Magnifying God in Christ: A Summary of New Testament Theology (Grand Rapids, Baker, 2010), 99.