Why Wright is not Reformed

I see a pattern here, of a list that grows and grows of known and respected Reformed theologians, who upon reading Mr. Wright's works, find problems, and many would agree, not of the nitpicking kind.

In the 16th Cent you could find just as large a group of illustrious theologians would who oppose any new-fangled interpretations of Scripture, such as Luther's and Calvin's. It's not clear to me that this is any different. Wright has answered their criticisms, and I think his answers make sense. Wright is certainly not advocating justification by works. Quite the contrary.

hedrick said:

The question here is what it means to be Reformed. Does it mean that you can't disagree with the Reformers on any important issue? I would maintain that being Reformed means honoring the Reformers by following Scripture where it leads, as they did. I very much doubt that Calvin would be happy to be considered the source of a new infallible Tradition. That's a new Catholicism, not a Reformed faith.

Click to expand...

Being Reformed has a specific meaning, one based upon the history of the church. Sure, anyone can appropriate the label, but that does not change the meaning.

A Puritan's Mind » What Does it Mean to be Reformed – Really? – by Dr. C. Matthew McMahon

Can Baptists Be Reformed? Is this a contradiction in terms?

“Bound to the Past” and to a Living Confession | The Heidelblog

N.T. Wright on Justification by C.E. Hill | Reformed Theology Articles at Ligonier.org

Moreover, Wright gets no pass just in some misguided spirit of ecumenicism or Christian charity. He and his ilk espouse a view that has been formally condemned by numerous NAPARC churches, so let's not go down this "let's just all get along" path.

Invoking Calvin, as if he is the regula fidei of the Reformed may get some play from the uninformed crowd, but those that discern what liberalism and the pursuit of theological novelty is doing within the church--especially from others that would wink at FV/NPP--will not sit idly by without denouncing such views.

hedrick said:

In the 16th Cent you could find just as large a group of illustrious theologians would who oppose any new-fangled interpretations of Scripture, such as Luther's and Calvin's. It's not clear to me that this is any different. Wright has answered their criticisms, and I think his answers make sense. Wright is certainly not advocating justification by works. Quite the contrary.

Click to expand...

If you have read the man's corpus, examined the issues, you could not make this statement. Rather than tilt at every wind of doctrine steep yourself more fully into such matters. The church miltant has spoken in communion. All NAPARC members, as well as other denominational groups, have condemned these views. By making theses public statements you are likely out of accord with your own session. Exactly what Presbyterian group are you a church member of? Speak to your session and submit yourself to their authority.

e.g.,
New Horizons

http://www.opc.org/GA/justification.pdf‎

http://clark.wscal.edu/fvnpp.php

http://www.fpcjackson.org/resources/apologetics/Modern%20Unbib%20Chall%20to%20Covt%20Theology/modern_unbibl_challeng_%20index.htm

AMR said:

If you have read the man's corpus, examined the issues, you could not make this statement. Rather than tilt at every wind of doctrine steep yourself more fully into such matters. The church miltant has spoken in communion. All NAPARC members, as well as other demonational groups, have condemned these views. By making theses public statements you are likely out of accord with your own session. Exactly what Presbyterian group are you a church member of? Speak to your session and submit yourself to their authority.

Click to expand...

I'm reasonably certain that you're wrong about my Session. As a past Clerk I speak with reasonable assurance on this topic.

If we're going to define Reformed by numbers, my denomination (PCUSA) is part of the World Communion of Reformed Churches. It takes a somewhat broader view of the Reformed tradition than you do. It also has 80 million members compared with about 500,000 for the NAPARC (from Wikipedia).

That's not to say that everyone in the WCRC would agree with Wright. I'm sure many would not. I don't agree with him about everything, including some of his ideas on justification.

hedrick said:

...my denomination (PCUSA)...

Click to expand...

My point about liberalism and every wind of doctrine stands. The PCUSA in the large has long since abandoned any pretense of affirming its Confessional basis. 'nuf said.

Sigh.

AMR said:

e.g.,
New Horizons

http://www.opc.org/GA/justification.pdf‎

Resources on the Federal Vision and New Perspective on Paul

INDEX to Modern unbiblical challenges to trad ref covt theol

Click to expand...

Thank you for the links, especially the PDF on justification at the OPC site, the paper is more than 90 pages in length!

AMR said:

The church miltant has spoken in communion. All NAPARC members, as well as other demonational groups, have condemned these views.

Click to expand...

Where is the official condemnation? The OPC report states:

The Assembly did not take any action to endorse every word of the document or make the report itself a part of our constitution...It should be noted that the General Assembly is not invested with power, by virtue of its own authority, to make pronouncements which bind the conscience of members of the Church.

Click to expand...

The committee was charged with

To critique the teachings of the “New Perspective on Paul,” “Federal Vision” and other like teachings concerning the doctrine of justification and other related doctrines, as they are related to the Word of God and
our subordinate standards, with a view of giving a clear statement to the presbyteries, sessions, and seminaries, and report back to the Seventy-second General Assembly.

Click to expand...

The conclusion of the OPC committe is:

This general conclusion means that the following points are out of accord with Scripture and our doctrinal standards:
1. “Righteousness” defined as covenant membership rather than moral equity, or adherence to a moral standard.
2. “Works of the law” for justification understood as boundary markers identifying Israel as God’s covenant people.
3. Justification only as vindication.
4. A second or future justification that has a different ground from one’s justification by faith.
5. Shifting the ground of justification from the finished work of Christ to the Spirit-produced works of the believer.
6. Denial of the imputation of the active and / or passive obedience of Christ.
7. Compromising the self-authenticating and self-interpreting nature of the Scriptures by giving the literature of Second Temple Judaism undue interpretive weight.

Click to expand...

To which we must ask was this an official declaration that the teaching of Wright is not Reformed? The answer is quite clearly 'No'. It shows that in the opinions of the members of the committee Wright's teaching is contrary to the Westminster Standards and Scripture as understood in the light of those Standards. But since when has the Westminster Standards defined who is and is not Reformed?

Further, since 2004 when the report was published, Wright has clarified his thinking on points 1-6 which has clearly demonstrated that these conclusions are factually wrong, not least because Wright clearly does not say that “Righteousness” is to be defined as covenant membership rather than moral equity, or adherence to a moral standard, he would see that both are included!

Iosias said:

But since when has the Westminster Standards defined who is and is not Reformed?

Click to expand...

You seem to be decrying a point that is patently obvious to the Reformed, so I have to ask if you understand what "Reformed" means in an ecclessial historical context. If you think Reformed = Calvinism, you have it wrong. Ditto for Reformed = Reformed Baptist. Wright's views have been found to be beyond the bounds and his attempts to "clarify" his words have not rehabilitated NPP one iota. Did you even review the previously supplied content in its entirety? Have you read Wright's works? This is simply not a matter of debate among the Reformed churches. If you want to go on about how "your church" does not see it the same way, that is your prerogative, but do not wrap yourself in the label "Reformed" while you are at it.

Have you discussed this with your local session?

AMR said:

You seem to be decrying a point that is patently obvious to the Reformed, so I have to ask if you understand what "Reformed" means in an ecclessial historical context.

Click to expand...

It is well known that the Reformed standards include the following:

Articles of Religion
Belgic Confession
Canons of Dordt
Heidelberg Catechism
Second Helvetic Confession
Westminster Standards

Furthermore, a central question within Reformed circles includes the nature of subscription. That is to say, it is quite possible to disagree with the above and still remain Reformed. For goodness sake, Michael Horton has stated that we need to move beyond the confessions (in his case the Three Forms of Unity).

If you're defining 'Reformed' as someone who must agree with the Westminster Standards along strict subscriptionist lines then sure, Wright is not Reformed. But, that is not how most understand what 'Reformed' means.

AMR said:

Have you read Wright's works?

Click to expand...

I have read pretty much all he has written, and have sat in his lectures.

I would accept the following as characterizing Reformed theology: What is Reformed Theology?.

AMR said:

You seem to be decrying a point that is patently obvious to the Reformed, so I have to ask if you understand what "Reformed" means in an ecclessial historical context. If you think Reformed = Calvinism, you have it wrong. Ditto for Reformed = Reformed Baptist. Wright's views have been found to be beyond the bounds and his attempts to "clarify" his words have not rehabilitated NPP one iota. Did you even review the previously supplied content in its entirety? Have you read Wright's works? This is simply not a matter of debate among the Reformed churches. If you want to go on about how "your church" does not see it the same way, that is your prerogative, but do not wrap yourself in the label "Reformed" while you are at it.

Have you discussed this with your local session?

Click to expand...

Baptists can be Reformed however.

One of the biggest problems in theology is that the NT, and even theologians, do not use words in one precise way, nor set up single schemes that exclude all others.

I would maintain that Wright is essentially right about Paul, but is probably being unfair to Calvin. But to justify this we need to look at both in more detail than anyone here has done so far.

Paul says in Romans that we are justified by faith. He doesn't say that Christ's righteousness is imputed to us, but rather that our faith is reckoned by God as righteousness. What does righteousness mean? The general definition, I think, is doing the right thing. For Christians that means doing what God requires. Paul's point is that for us, God accepts faith as satisfying his requirement. We are genuinely righteous when we have faith, because that's what God is looking for. He is not looking for works of the Law.

However there's a second stage of the argument which I'm not sure Wright makes so clearly. Paul normally speaks of righteousness as coming from faith, but in a few places he uses it more conventionally, for behavior that God approves. So Rom 14:4, 2 Cor 6:7. Paul certainly doesn't think that having faith ends God's expectations for us, and that there are no expectations for behavior. So if you think righteousness means doing what God demands, he does demand that Christians lead an obedient life. I think Jesus uses the term righteousness in this sense, as does Paul a couple of places. If that's right, that the use of righteousness in Rom 4 and 5 is referring to what God demands in a specific context, the context being what God demands in order to recognize us as one of his, i.e. it's the righteousness that is associated with justification. And in that context, what God demands is faith, so he reckons our faith as righteousness. And that's roughly the definition of righteousness that Wright uses: righteousness for him is being in good standing with God. But that doesn't exhaust the contexts in which righteousness is used.

So how about Calvin? Calvin's position on justification in the Institutes is more complex than often described. His basic concept is that we are righteous because God has forgiven us. If he has forgiven us, than none of our sins count against us, and we can be considered as having done what God requires. He cites Luke 18:14. I believe this is a fair position, which agrees with Jesus. Jesus demands obedience, but he is also clear that God is happy to forgive us when we repent. He says that the tax collector is justified, and I think he would also consider a person who lives a generally faithful life but repents when they need to as righteous, though Jesus doesn't use righteous as often or in as technical a way as Paul does.

But Calvin also deals with Paul. He also recognizes Paul's concept of the righteousness that is based on faith. But he goes beyond that to make explicit what Paul leaves implicit: that faith justifies because it unites us with Christ, and that through this we receive Christ's obedience. This is Rom 6. It's certainly consistent with Paul's thought. But Paul never actually says that we are justified by Christ's righteousness or obedience. When he uses term "imputed" (though it's normally translated "reckoned" by the NRSV) he's talking about faith, not Christ's righteousness. But the connection is there, and Calvin brings it out. We are not justified simply by God counting Christ's obedience as ours, independent of any connection with us. Rather, we are justified by faith, and both Calvin and Paul say that faith is participation in Christ. So we actually participate in his obedience, even though it always remains in some sense external to us. Since faith is participation in Christ, in the end we are justified (reckoned righteous) due to Christ's obedience.

The problem I have with the usual statement that Christ's obedience is imputed to us is that it short-circuits this account, and implies a kind of legal fiction. I think it's safer to say, with Paul, that our faith is reckoned as righteousness, and then look at the implications of faith.

Here's what Calvin says about how justification works:

"I acknowledge that we are devoid of this incomparable gift until Christ become ours. Therefore, to that union of the head and members, the residence of Christ in our hearts, in fine, the mystical union, we assign the highest rank, Christ when he becomes ours making us partners with him in the gifts with which he was endued. Hence we do not view him as at a distance and without us, but as we have put him on, and been ingrafted into his body, he deigns to make us one with himself, and, therefore, we glory in having a fellowship of righteousness with him." (Institutes 3.11.10)

There is, I think, a difference between Calvin's "fellowship of righteousness", echoing Rom 6, and a purely legal imputation of Christ's righteousness.

I think Wright would benefit by looking at Calvin's treatment, but he is primarily a NT scholar, not a Reformation expert. I don't think Wright's work, particularly with later clarifications, contradicts all of this though.

This was a very informative and interesting thread. I read it all, much appreciated. The links led to informative and interesting articles too.

I've read a few of Wright's books -- Resurrection of the Son of God, Surprised by Hope, and The Last Word -- and also watched a DVD of his on the resurrection. My sense is that Wright would be considered evangelical within Europe and within academic circles in the U.S. and Canada. Wright believes (and defends) the bodily of resurrection of Christ -- a belief held by only a third of those in the Church of England, as I understand it.

I'm not sure in what sense Wright would not be reformed. But it's a label that just doesn't really apply to him. It would be like saying R.C. Sproul or Michael Horton are not fundamentalists. They would probably agree with fundamentalists in many respects, but it's a label that doesn't quite apply to them.

Iosias said:

If you're defining 'Reformed' as someone who must agree with the Westminster Standards along strict subscriptionist lines then sure, Wright is not Reformed. But, that is not how most understand what 'Reformed' means.

Click to expand...

You do not understand the term in its proper historical sense.

Please review the thread, especially the links in post #23.

Behe's Boy said:

Baptists can be Reformed however.

Click to expand...

Baptists may appropriate the label, but it in no way makes them "Reformed" as the term has been understood since the Reformation. Again, see post #23 and links therein for starters.