|
You’re St. Melito of Sardis! You have a great love of history and liturgy. You’re attached to the traditions of the ancients, yet you recognize that the old world — great as it was — is passing away. You are loyal to the customs of your family, though you do not hesitate to call family members to account for their sins. Find out which Church Father you are at The Way of the Fathers! |
|
You’re St. Justin Martyr! You have a positive and hopeful attitude toward the world. You think that nature, history, and even the pagan philosophers were often guided by God in preparation for the Advent of the Christ. You find “seeds of the Word” in unexpected places. You’re patient and willing to explain the faith to unbelievers. Find out which Church Father you are at The Way of the Fathers! |
6 comments:
Answer: All of them! Every single one does not think of justification as legal fiction. Don't believe me:
F.C. Baur, Paul the Apostle of Jesus Christ: His Life and Works, His Epistles and Teachings: Two Volumes in One (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2003 [1873-75]) 2: 158-61.
James D. G. Dunn, The Theology of Paul the Apostle, 385-86.
N.T. Wright, “Justification: The Biblical Basis and its Relevance for Contemporary Evangelicalism,” in The Great Acquittal, ed. G. Reid (London: Collins, 1980) 27 [but see What Saint Paul Really Said {Oxford: Lion, 1997}113, where he does question the idea]
G.E. Ladd, A Theology of the New Testament (rev. and ed. Ralph P. Martin and Donald A. Hagner; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1993) 486-87.
Richard B. Hays, “Justification,” in ABD, ed. David Noel Freedman (ABRL; 6 vols.; New York: Doubleday, 1992) 3:1131.
I'm currently trying to work my way through Wright's material. My understanding is that, just like anyone else, his thinking has developed over the years. I've heard Carson say that some of his views were a bit different back in the day when they were contemporarys at Oxbridge. Or to put it in your vernacular: though he was (back then) and is (currently) within the reformed camp, back then more people would have liked the camping equipment he brought on the trips :-) Anyway, all that to say: Where is he currenly at in his thinking on the forensic nature of Justification? Any insite from his latest Paul - A Fresh Perspective? (I haven't read it yet, but I noticed you've posted at least a picture of it :-)
Nate
It is clear to me from "Shape of Justification" and the his Edinburgh Dogs Conference paper an more recently with Fresh Perspectives, that he thinks of justification as conferring on the status of "righteous". But the fact is that he doesn't get there via imputation - which worries some - instead it's bound up with Union in the Messiah and Regeneration. Wright's passion is to show that justification is Paul's solution to Jewish ethnocentricism.
Also. Yes, Wright definitely has developed his thinking. If you read his NBT article it is hardly controversial. When you get into Climax and WSPRS, then he starts going hay-wire. But his response to Barnett (as I heard Carson acknowledge as well) represents an accomodation in his view and [in my view now] brings him closer to a more Reformed position.
I've not done much work at all on Paul studies: what is meant to be conveyed by "legal fiction"?
Mike,
You said:
"But the fact is that he doesn't get there via imputation - which worries some - instead it's bound up with Union in the Messiah and Regeneration."
This sounds similar to what you were arguing for in your JETS article on Incorporation (Which was very helpful, might I add :-) Am I reading you right? (I had to supress the urge to ask "am I reading you Wright? Poor guy is always getting his name maligned in reviews)
Nate
Post a Comment