• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

Why Wright is not Reformed

AMR

Presbyterian (PCA) - Bona Fide Reformed
Jun 19, 2009
6,717
913
Chandler, Arizona
Visit site
✟219,428.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
I have read pretty much all he has written, and have sat in his lectures. :)
Have you spoken with your local session about your views regarding Wright?
 
Upvote 0

AndOne

Deliver me oh Lord, from evil men
Apr 20, 2002
7,477
462
Florida
✟28,628.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
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.

I disagree. Anyone who holds to the five Solas, the doctrines of grace, and one of the major confessions of faith including the London Baptist Confession is Reformed. Your links are from one narrow minded, legalistic, Presbyterian perspective that wants to make Christianity more about covenant theology than about grace.

The Reformation itself had nothing to do with infant Baptism/Covenant Theology. Luther wasn't condemned by Rome because he was baptising babies nor was Calvin thrown out France for it. The issue - grace - which is what should unite all Christians under the banner of The Reformation.
 
Upvote 0
Oct 21, 2003
6,793
3,289
Central Time Zone
✟122,193.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
I'm afraid I do, let's be honest...both Karl Barth and Emil Brunner were Reformed theologians!

Ahh yes, Karl Barth the father of neo-orthodoxy. I've listened and read enough of Dr. Van Til's critique's of Barth to know I'd be just as well off reading any other heretical works crafted by other children of Satan!
 
Upvote 0

Iosias

Senior Contributor
Jul 18, 2004
8,171
227
✟9,648.00
Faith
Christian Seeker
Marital Status
Private
Ahh yes, Karl Barth the father of neo-orthodoxy. I've listened and read enough of Dr. Van Til's critique's of Barth to know I'd be just as well off reading any other heretical works crafted by other children of Satan!

Have you come across Barth's response to Van Til? Barth said that Van Til had obviously been reading someone else!! See here. Far better is Gerrit Cornelis Berkouwer's assessment - The Triumph of Grace in the Theology of Karl Barth of which Barth said that at least Berkouwer understood him, unlike Van Til.

My original point, however, is that the Reformed fold is far wider than AMR thinks.
 
Upvote 0
Oct 21, 2003
6,793
3,289
Central Time Zone
✟122,193.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Have you come across Barth's response to Van Til? Barth said that Van Til had obviously been reading someone else!! See here. Far better is Gerrit Cornelis Berkouwer's assessment - The Triumph of Grace in the Theology of Karl Barth of which Barth said that at least Berkouwer understood him, unlike Van Til.

My original point, however, is that the Reformed fold is far wider than AMR thinks.

I am curious about J.I. Packer's thoughts on N.T. Wright's writings/views, since both are Anglicans, though I understand the room for disagreement among Anglicans, some are Reformed others are not.
 
Upvote 0

JM

Confessional Free Catholic
Site Supporter
Jun 26, 2004
17,478
3,739
Canada
✟883,276.00
Country
Canada
Gender
Male
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Others
Baptists may not be considered Reformed but have Reformed soteriology.

Wright is an Anglican, rejects biblically Reformed ideas of justification...he is outside the camp.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: AMR
Upvote 0

AMR

Presbyterian (PCA) - Bona Fide Reformed
Jun 19, 2009
6,717
913
Chandler, Arizona
Visit site
✟219,428.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
I disagree. Anyone who holds to the five Solas, the doctrines of grace, and one of the major confessions of faith including the London Baptist Confession is Reformed. Your links are from one narrow minded, legalistic, Presbyterian perspective that wants to make Christianity more about covenant theology than about grace.

The Reformation itself had nothing to do with infant Baptism/Covenant Theology. Luther wasn't condemned by Rome because he was baptising babies nor was Calvin thrown out France for it. The issue - grace - which is what should unite all Christians under the banner of The Reformation.
Please refresh yourself on matters of historical ecclesiology as relates to the Reformation and beyond. You are in gross error here, including the notion that the LBCF is "Reformed", as history stands against you.

Some suggestions to remove these deficiencies:

Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics, Muller, 4 volumes

Calvin and the Reformed Tradition, Muller

Introduction to Reformed Scholasticism. Protestant Scholasticism: Essays in Reassessment, Willem van Asselt
 
Upvote 0

AMR

Presbyterian (PCA) - Bona Fide Reformed
Jun 19, 2009
6,717
913
Chandler, Arizona
Visit site
✟219,428.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Baptists may not be considered Reformed but have Reformed soteriology...
Exactly!

The very term "Reformed Baptist" is very new in church history (1960's Carlisle, PA). Better to use "Particular Baptist" as was the common use of Puritan credo-baptist pastors of the 1600s. History clearly shows that seventeenth century Baptists explicitly rejected certain distinct Reformed doctrines.

Those who are Reformed adhere to a specific theology and practice with a specific historical and theological understanding.

To be "Reformed" means the following of Calvin's ecclesiastical theology in the Reformed churches of France, Switzerland and Germany during the Reformation. Jochaim Westphal, a Lutheran, coined the term while writing against Calvin's sacramental theology and ecclesiology, naming those who followed Calvin "Calvinists" and "Reformed".
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Iosias

Senior Contributor
Jul 18, 2004
8,171
227
✟9,648.00
Faith
Christian Seeker
Marital Status
Private
I am curious about J.I. Packer's thoughts on N.T. Wright's writings/views, since both are Anglicans, though I understand the room for disagreement among Anglicans, some are Reformed others are not.

I am not sure if Packer has voiced his opinion, if he has, I've not come across it.

Wright...rejects biblically Reformed ideas of justification

He, and I, along with many others, would disagree. Does Wright disagree with some confessional statements on what justification is? Yes. But is he saying something that is radically opposed to what they say? No. This is key, whilst he may not be keeping to the letter of the law, he is within its spirit. Moreover, his disagreement is driven by what the Bible says! So he is seeking to correct the confession in the light of scripture; sounds pretty Reformed to me.

For example, Thomas Goodwin and John Gill understand justification as something broader then the moment we believe we are 'justified'; both teaching a justification in eternity and a future justification, the latter being what Wright teaches. We wouldn't consider Goodwin to not be Reformed would we?

Some suggestions to remove these deficiencies:

Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics, Muller, 4 volumes

Calvin and the Reformed Tradition, Muller

Introduction to Reformed Scholasticism. Protestant Scholasticism: Essays in Reassessment, Willem van Asselt

I've read them all, except the final volume.
 
Upvote 0

AMR

Presbyterian (PCA) - Bona Fide Reformed
Jun 19, 2009
6,717
913
Chandler, Arizona
Visit site
✟219,428.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
For example, Thomas Goodwin and John Gill understand justification as something broader then the moment we believe we are 'justified'; both teaching a justification in eternity and a future justification, the latter being what Wright teaches. We wouldn't consider Goodwin to not be Reformed would we?
Goodwin explicitly states that justification takes place upon believing. He in no way held to the heresy of eternal justification. At any time Goodwin refers to diverse aspects of justification it is in the abstract, not in the concrete, as when actual justification takes place. There is no such thing as a justified unbeliever. You are confusing the man's own words to likien virtual justification to this scandalous notion of justification from eternity (compare to justified in eternity).

John Colquhoun, Sermons, pp. 152-156.

IV. Under the fourth general head, I was to consider the manner of a sinner's justification. The elect were justified,

1. Intentionally, or in the absolute purpose and decree of God. It is called "the justification of life." It is legal life, in opposition to legal death under the condemning sentence of the violated law, and as such is a constituent part of eternal life. Now, we are told that eternal life was promised and given to the elect in Christ, or to Christ as Representative of the elect, before the world began. "In hope of eternal life, that God who cannot lie promised before the world began." "Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began." Hence justification, as a fundamental part of that life, was according to the purpose and grace of God, promised and given to the elect in Christ, before the world began. It was promised to Christ their Representative, in their name, upon condition of his fulfilling all righteousness for them in time. Thus on the ground of their federal union with their adorable Surety, they were justified according to the purpose and grace of God, even from eternity. Hence is this cheering declaration, "The Lord hath laid on Him the iniquity of us all," Isa. liii. 6. The Father, in making the covenant of grace, laid the guilt of the iniquities of all the elect upon him, and that from everlasting. But this load of guilt could not be considered as transferred to him, without being in some sense transferred from them. The same delightful truth is hinted in the first promise, Gen. iii. 15. There the elect are comprehended under the seed of the woman; and are represented in Christ their Head, as the enemies and conquerors of Satan. Now this presupposes the suretiship of Christ, and the guilt of their iniquities already laid on him. It implies that in the decree of God they are set free from the guilt of sin; otherwise they could not be represented as delivered from the dominion either of sin or of Satan. That promise implied a declaration, that on account of the suretiship of Jesus Christ, God never intended to execute the sentence of the broken law upon any of his chosen. Whenever a surety is admitted, the principal debtor is understood, intentionally at least, to be free from obligation to advance the debt.

2d, They were justified virtually, in the resurrection of Christ from the dead. — When Jesus died, he died in order to satisfy Divine justice, as Surety of the elect: when he rose, he rose as their Representative, and in him they all virtually arose. In his resurrection, he was publicly and solemnly acquitted; and he received a full discharge from the hand of his righteous Father, for the debt which he engaged to clear. Hence the Father is represented as the God of peace, who brought again from the dead the Lord Jesus, through the blood of the everlasting covenant; and as having raised him up, loosing the pains of death. When vindictive justice had now no more to demand from him, his Father, as an evidence thereof, knocked off the fetters of the grave, and released him from that prison-house. "He was taken from prison and from judgment," Isa. liii. 8. His righteous Father, having accepted the payment of the infinite debt at his hands, solemnly absolved him at his resurrection from every judicial charge. "Then was he justified in the Spirit: He was raised again for our justification." As he was one with the elect in law, his justification was fundamentally and virtually their justification. They were crucified with him in his death, and justified with him in his resurrection. Then were they all virtually absolved from guilt, and virtually accepted as righteous. Then it was that God declared that full satisfaction was given by Christ. "God was in Christ reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them," 2 Cor. v. 19. Then he reconciled to himself the elect world, and declared that he would not impute their trespasses to them for condemnation. Having rent the veil of the temple, and torn the handwriting of ordinances, he took it out of the way. And is not tearing the hand-writing, or the bond, an evidence that the creditor has no intention to demand payment from the principal debtor?

3d, They are justified actually, when they apply this justification, each of them to himself by faith. — "All who believe are justified from all things;" that is, are justified actually, so as to have the sentence declared, both in the court of heaven and in the court of conscience. Though our adorable Surety has merited pardon of sin, and a title to life, for all his elect, so that God hath already declared that the condemning sentence shall never be executed upon them; yet, they are not actually pardoned nor entitled to life till they apply by faith this declaration to themselves, and so receive the remission of sins. Notwithstanding their intentional and virtual justification in Christ their Representative, they are still considered as children of wrath, as under condemnation, Gal. iii. 10, till they flee from the curse of the law to the promise of the covenant of grace. When they have through the Spirit applied Christ and the blessing of justification to themselves in particular, and have presented, in the hand of faith, his perfect righteousness to God, as the sole ground of their title to eternal life, they are justified actually. They are not only absolved from guilt and adjudged to life, but declared to be so, declared righteous in the sight of God. Jesus Christ merited a right to eternal life for all his spiritual seed, so that none of them can perish; but this right is not particularly applied to them, until they believe, and be vitally united to him. The sentence is not judicially declared, not does it terminate in the sinner's conscience, till he present that righteousness to God the Judge for aquittance. He must first plead the complete satisfaction of his Divine Surety at the bar of the court of heaven, before the sentence can be intimated in the court of conscience.

Lastly, They shall be publicly justified at the last day. — Then they shall be solemnly absolved before an assembled world, and have their title to eternal life publicly proclaimed. In that day, judgment shall be passed, an irreversible sentence shall be pronounced on them. On this account, it is called the day of judgment, Matth. xii. 36. In that day, the good works of the saints shall be proclaimed, not as the ground of their justification, but as evidences of their interest in the spotless righteousness of Christ, and of their title to life eternal. This, the sentence of the righteous Judge implies, — "Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you." It is only in union with Christ that men are blessed; that they inherit, or possess as sons by hereditary right, the kingdom. Thus, the elect shall be justified publicly, and be declared heirs of an eternal inheritance. Now, the sentence of aquitment and of title to life, is pronounced only in the court of heaven, and to the believer himself; but in that day, it shall be declared before all kindreds and nations. O what triumphant, what transporting joy, will fill the hearts of that redeemed company, when, clothed with the white robe of the Redeemer's righteousness, they shall enter the heavenly sanctuary, no more to go out! "With gladness and rejoicing shall they be brought: they shall enter into the king's palace."

Thus the elect are justified. — They were justified in the day of eternity, before the world began; in the day of the Redeemer's resurrection; in the day of believing; and in the last day. — In the day of eternity, they were justified intentionally; in the day of the Saviour's resurrection, virtually, or fundamentally; in the day of believing, actually, or declaratively; and at the last day, publicly and solemnly. In the day of eternity, their justification was actually secured; in the day of Christ's resurrection, it was acually merited; in the day of believing, it is actually applied to the conscience; and in the day of judgment it shall be actually declared in the most public and solemn manner. From eternity, they were justified in the purpose of God; at Christ's resurrection, they were justified in the Son of God as their representative; at the time of their beginning to believe, they are justified in the court of God, the court of heaven, and the court of conscience; and in the last day, they shall be justified publicly at Christ's august tribunal.



THE CONCLUSIONS OF UTRECHT (1905)

B. Eternal Justification

In regard to the second point, eternal justification, Synod declares:

* that the term itself does not occur in the Confessional Standards but that it is not for this reason to be disapproved, any more than we would be justified in disapproving the term Covenant of Works and similar terms which have been adopted through theological usage;

* that it is incorrect to say that our Confessional Standards know only of a justification by and through faith, since both Gods' Word (Rom. 4:25) and our Confession (Article XX) speak explicitly of an objective justification sealed by the resurrection of Christ, which in point of time precedes the subjective justification;

* that, moreover, as far as the matter itself is concerned, all our churches sincerely believe and confess that Christ from eternity in the Counsel of Peace undertook to be the Surety of His people; taking their guilt upon Himself as also that afterward He by His suffering and death on Calvary actually paid the ransom for us, reconciling us to God while were yet enemies; but that on the basis of God's Word and in harmony with our Confession it must be maintained with equal firmness that we personally become partakers of this benefit only by a sincere faith.

Wherefore Synod earnestly warns against any view that would do violence either to Christ's eternal suretyship for his elect, or to the requirement of a sincere faith to be justified before God in the tribunal of conscience.


I've read them all, except the final volume.
Given your conclusions drawn about Goodwin, I have no doubt you are also confused when reading Muller. There is no way you could be making your statements about "Reformed" having accurately read Muller.

:doh:Oh, and by the way, no one who knows their history would argue "John Gill was a Reformed theologian".
 
Upvote 0

JM

Confessional Free Catholic
Site Supporter
Jun 26, 2004
17,478
3,739
Canada
✟883,276.00
Country
Canada
Gender
Male
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Others
Muller,
This briefy survey of Gill’s sources indicates that, after the Bible, the main positive points of reference for Gill’s theology were the great Reformed and Puritan writers of the seventeenth century. The point is important for several reasons. In the first place, it locates Gill in relation to the Reformed and dogmatic tradition, specifically, the tradition of Puritanism and its continental analogue, post-Reformation Reformed orthodoxy. Second, without in any way diminishing Gill’s commitment to the distinctive teachings of the Baptist churches, it identfies the larger number of his theological antecedents as thinkers not belonging to the Baptist tradition: Gill was not, in other words, an insular thinker, but he was clearly selective. Third, the point establishes Gill as a highly independent thinker in a relative sense: he was able to exert a a degree of independence over against even his most trusted sources in order to position himself within the Particular Baptist tradition and in the context of the problems and debates confronting theology in the mid-eighteenth century. Fourth, Gill was able, given the kind of sources with which he was aquainted, to produce a theology that was at once fundamentally Baptist and largely Reformed, and that because of its stance on a solid traditionary ground, was also able to maintain its distance from and dissonance with many of the currents of eighteenth-century theology. (source)
After all that...I doubt Gill would take the name 'Reformed.' He viewed infant baptism as popery. Reformed in soteriology sure, but not Reformed...still, Wright is no where near Reformed soteriology.



jm
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: AndOne
Upvote 0

Iosias

Senior Contributor
Jul 18, 2004
8,171
227
✟9,648.00
Faith
Christian Seeker
Marital Status
Private
Goodwin explicitly states that justification takes place upon believing.

He does, he also says that the elect are justified objectively in eternity in his huge tome on Justifying Faith.

no one who knows their history would argue "John Gill was a Reformed theologian".

I agree, where did I say he was?
 
Upvote 0

Iosias

Senior Contributor
Jul 18, 2004
8,171
227
✟9,648.00
Faith
Christian Seeker
Marital Status
Private
Wright is no where near Reformed soteriology.

You say that, but you've yet to show it. He clearly and explicitly affirms the five solas of the Reformation:
It is time to turn away from all this; to rub our eyes, and look clearly at the path by which we and our culture have come. It is time to turn back again, following the old sola scriptura principle, to the source and origin of one of the great doctrines of the New Testament: that when, through God’s effective call (sola gratia) in the preaching of the gospel of Jesus Christ (solus Christus), someone comes to believe that he is the risen Messiah and Lord, God thereupon (sola fide) declares in advance what he will declare on the last day when he raises that person from the dead: this person is in the right, their sins have been forgiven, they are part of the single, true, worldwide covenant family promised to Abraham, the sign of the coming new creation and the counter-sign to the boast of Caesar. Justification is ultimately about justice, about God putting the world to rights, with his chosen and called people as the advance guard of that new creation, charged with being and bringing signs of hope, of restorative justice, to the world. Let’s put the justice back in justification; and, as we do so, remind ourselves whose justice it is, and why. Soli Deo Gloria! Having thus stolen Luther’s slogans, I thought I might end with ‘Here I stand’; but let me rather say it in Paul’s language. hode hesteka; allo ou dunamai.

HT: here.
 
Upvote 0

Iosias

Senior Contributor
Jul 18, 2004
8,171
227
✟9,648.00
Faith
Christian Seeker
Marital Status
Private
THE CONCLUSIONS OF UTRECHT (1905)

B. Eternal Justification

In regard to the second point, eternal justification, Synod declares:

* that the term itself does not occur in the Confessional Standards but that it is not for this reason to be disapproved, any more than we would be justified in disapproving the term Covenant of Works and similar terms which have been adopted through theological usage;

* that it is incorrect to say that our Confessional Standards know only of a justification by and through faith, since both Gods' Word (Rom. 4:25) and our Confession (Article XX) speak explicitly of an objective justification sealed by the resurrection of Christ, which in point of time precedes the subjective justification;

* that, moreover, as far as the matter itself is concerned, all our churches sincerely believe and confess that Christ from eternity in the Counsel of Peace undertook to be the Surety of His people; taking their guilt upon Himself as also that afterward He by His suffering and death on Calvary actually paid the ransom for us, reconciling us to God while were yet enemies; but that on the basis of God's Word and in harmony with our Confession it must be maintained with equal firmness that we personally become partakers of this benefit only by a sincere faith.

Wherefore Synod earnestly warns against any view that would do violence either to Christ's eternal suretyship for his elect, or to the requirement of a sincere faith to be justified before God in the tribunal of conscience.

I am well aware of the 1905 synod, what surprises me is that you, an American Presbyterian, thinks that a Dutch Reformed synod is authoritative. Importantly, J. I. Packer is one of many who have pointed out that the Westminster Divines rejected the doctrine of eternal justification. It seems then that the Presbyterians and the 'Dutch' Reformed do not see eye to eye o this. :)
 
Upvote 0

JM

Confessional Free Catholic
Site Supporter
Jun 26, 2004
17,478
3,739
Canada
✟883,276.00
Country
Canada
Gender
Male
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Others
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.

This is a good point. If your soteriology is Reformed wonderful, but don't pretend it is and expect the rest of the Church to sit by and say nothing.

jm
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: AMR
Upvote 0