His Critics and Some
Comments
Earlier this summer I offered a few comments on this Aquila
Report article in a discussion with a friend. This is slightly edited version
of them here...
I found this to be such a frustrating article but it nicely
expresses why Wright himself is so vexing.
While it's true the advocates of Federal Vision theology find
some agreement with some of what he's saying as do I. And
yet Wright's framing of the issues is also problematic.
The Reformed critique found in the article is probably almost as problematic.
I thumbed through the new Wright work on the revolution. It
was awful, even horrendous. It's a display of rank Postmillennial Dominionist rubbish....
transform the world into heaven and all their usual utopian rot. Sanctify
culture! It's like Tim Keller who wishes to 'redeem' everything and thus he can
say with a straight face that we'll have investment bankers in heaven.
I've not bothered to read much that Wright has written apart
from a few articles. I find he's more or less obnoxious to listen to and all
but insufferable in a debate context.
And yet for all that... he makes some interesting points. He
picks up on some of the other side
'issues' that many Reformed/Baptistic (notice how I put those two together) folks
seem to miss. That's why the Federal Visioners have always dabbled a bit with
the New Perspective. Its emphasis on the Objective Covenant and its
implications for the sacraments and temporal soteriology are pretty interesting
and resonate with what we've been saying for more than twenty years.
Venema repeats the classic misrepresentation of the issue,
muddying the waters by equating such arguments with a Roman Catholic understanding
faith and works. I grow weary of this straw man argument, one I hear on a
regular basis.
Protestantism often has a very weak definition of faith and
an over-emphasis on Justification... It is theologically prioritised to the
point of watering down the other categories of soteriology. I would argue the New
Testament definition of Faith includes works. That sounds shocking but the
questions are.... what is saving faith... what are the works... what are their
nature and source... are they meritorious? The Biblical data is almost
overwhelming, again it all depends on how these terms are defined. Modern
Reformed aren't even in line with what they think their confessions say.
Saving Faith is always presented in terms of hope, trust,
obedience, transformation, antithesis, fruit-bearing and perseverance. Much of
Confessionalism and Evangelicalism struggle with this and in many cases deny
it.
The 'works' can only be defined by God Himself... they are
the fruits of faith, the evidences of the Holy Spirit's presence and His
working within the person. They're not technically 'our' works. We can claim no
wage. Our works are tainted by false motives and our righteousness is as filthy
rags. And yet when these imperfect works are done in faith, with a desire
(albeit flawed) to please God, the works become pleasing to Him and testify to the Spirit's transformation.
You're not 'earning' your way into heaven but the works themselves evidence and testify to the presence of the
Spirit... of our faith. It's all a gift, all of grace. We climb the hill
and look back and we don't say... 'Wow, look at what I did!'
No, we look back and say, 'But for the grace of God I could
have never climbed that hill.
And look at me, I'm a torn up mess and I've upset everything
along the way.'
This is not what Rome teaches. Rome pays lip service to
similar ideas but Romish works have nothing to do with Spirit-wrought fruit.
Rome's works are rooted in obedience to a man-made system derived from
syncretism, tradition, dictate and philosophical speculation. Rome's works are outward conformities to institutional
rules. They have nothing to do with faith-wrought fruits of the Spirit.
Roman theologians often play fast and loose with this truth.
Is this a surprise? Look at the games they play with regard to doulia and latria, let alone the so-called hyper-doulia
due to Mary. Rome has technical answers for their practices that allow them to
evade the many charges brought against them. The Tridentine definitions are
flawed in addition to being de facto
dishonest.
But I'm afraid Scholastic/Confessional Protestantism has
fallen short and having passed through the fires of Aufklärung and in its attempts to maintain their flawed and
misguided commitments to Scholastic Prolegomena they have painted themselves
into a corner.
In addition, while I sympathise with Lutheran and Magisterial
Reformation concerns for assurance... the assurance associated with Sola Fide
is often something less than the blessed hope and persevering faith-wrought
assurance found in the New Testament. In many cases they have confused
assurance with presumption.