23 September 2017

Inbox: The Right and Wrong of NT Wright

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.