tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13840519.post5959686203754677191..comments2024-03-27T03:32:53.817-05:00Comments on Euangelion: Evangelicals and CatholicsMichael F. Birdhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09713482855679578651noreply@blogger.comBlogger13125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13840519.post-79298246911807947952009-11-04T21:25:18.525-06:002009-11-04T21:25:18.525-06:00Thanks, Mike. I so appreciate your spirit!
BTW, I...Thanks, Mike. I so appreciate your spirit!<br /><br />BTW, I regret that I didn't contact you when I was down under. My first visit there. I must say that Sydney felt like home like no other place. By 'home' I mean where I grew up--Newport Beach, CA. Sydney was NB with skyscrapers. I'd love to come back and, if the opportunity arose, speak at some schools. I did have the opportunity to do a seminar on textual criticism at Trinity College in Perth. Great time!Dan Wallacehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08722782694798962564noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13840519.post-71826014453802919972009-11-04T01:14:49.516-06:002009-11-04T01:14:49.516-06:00Dan,
I regret that I should have written "har...Dan,<br />I regret that I should have written "hardly" instead of "no" and I will modify the post accordingly. Thanks for your clarification.Michael F. Birdhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09713482855679578651noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13840519.post-21227016853958786932009-11-03T02:29:08.672-06:002009-11-03T02:29:08.672-06:00Mike, you said, "I had a big on-line exchange...Mike, you said, "I had a big on-line exchange with Dan Wallace about this in his criticism that there is no difference between N.T. Wright's doctrines on justification and that of Rome." <br /><br />This is not true. You were referring to my blurb for John Piper's Future of Justification. What I said there, however, does not place Wright entirely in Rome. Here's the relevant portions of the blurb:<br /><br />"This book…shows that Wright’s version of the New Perspective is, in some respects, hardly different from the Old Perspective of Rome. Not everyone will agree with all that Piper says…."<br /><br />What I said about Wright was that his views were, "IN SOME RESPECTS, hardly different from the Old Perspective of Rome." You said that I saw no difference at all. I think we all need to be careful with how we recall conversations, especially over such an important matter. <br /><br />I also noted that "not everyone will agree with all that Piper says." I meant myself, among others. Remarkably, when I got Piper's manuscript from the publisher, I had just put up a blog post at Parchment & Pen called, "51% Protestant." In it, I argued that there is much we can learn from Rome and that for someone to be considered Protestant he had to agree with 51% of Protestant teaching. The publisher thought that I would not endorse Piper's book, largely because of this blog post and because of other statements I had made about justification by faith not needing to be something that a person consciously embraced to be saved. <br /><br />The irony here is that you have painted me with a black brush, when the reality is that there are various shades of gray to my theological viewpoint. So much so that one apologist did an hour-long program on his website taking me to task for my Catholic leanings!<br /><br />Now, fast forward to Wright's Justification: God's Plan and Paul's Vision. I wrote an essay on it called "δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ and N. T. Wright." It's posted at bible.org. There, I examined Wright's treatment of this important expression in Romans and found his exegesis wanting. <br /><br />So, on the one hand, Crossway wasn't sure if I could endorse Piper's book because I'm not fully in his camp. On the other hand, I have written a strong critique of Wright's view of justification. Although I see some good things in Roman Catholicism, I am at least 51% Protestant. I am open to wrestling with the faith, thinking through how we have drawn battle lines, and reorienting our views at all times to scripture. I am grieved over the lack of Protestant ecclesiology. Further, the Protestant hermeneutic, with its disparaging of tradition and elevation of reason for grasping the meaning of scripture, created the seed-plot for both theological liberalism and radical fundamentalism. We have put ourselves in a cul-de-sac in which we have to appeal to our mental processes for understanding ancient texts, when we simultaneously affirm the noetic effects of sin and that revelation is our final authority. The question this raises is, How do you access that revelation? And can it be construed without resorting to partial knowledge of finite, sinful creatures whose outlook is shaped by their own cultures, personalities, experiences? <br /><br />You are quite right that Geneva and Rome are not the only games in town. Please extend me the courtesy of recognizing that I am not a neo-Reformed thinker who elevates tradition above the text, for my own views are not entirely in one or the other camp. It should be added that Wright's view is not the only alternative to Geneva and Rome, either. I simply think that he's missed it on Paul's view of justification, but that shouldn't turn me into a hard-core reformed thinker just because I think he's wrong.<br /><br />I hope this clarifies things a bit.Dan Wallacehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08722782694798962564noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13840519.post-50696846665845681172009-11-03T01:30:57.193-06:002009-11-03T01:30:57.193-06:00Thanks much for your excellent analysis.
I'm ...Thanks much for your excellent analysis.<br /><br />I'm on staff with InterVarsity and have been extremely frustrated by the poor job of journalism Hansen did that completely misconstrued theological directions within InterVarsity (e.g., we've actually tightened our official stance on justification while welcoming Roman Catholics who are interested in making an evangelical faith journey without demanding denominational proselytization).<br /><br />And yes absolutely -- from on the ground on our college campuses an orthodox Roman Catholic is a better friend and partner any day than a liberal Protestant.DeeCeehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13615042158587942652noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13840519.post-89572168754489725482009-11-02T06:10:57.385-06:002009-11-02T06:10:57.385-06:00Wright has affirmed that Justification is forensic...Wright has affirmed that Justification is forensic in numerous places. He consistently explains the word in its 'law-court' setting as well as its covenantal and eschatological setting. See his articles on Redemption from the New Perspective, New Perspectives on Paul, etc.Kevinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09576636377967909301noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13840519.post-24119396651823297242009-11-01T13:24:27.014-06:002009-11-01T13:24:27.014-06:00I think that the points you make are valuable as a...I think that the points you make are valuable as a practising Catholic who at time would prefer to be in some Protestant camps than some of the weird Catholics sects such as the Neo-Catechumenate. I am interested in your mention of Bucer. Do you also know in relation to this Oberman`s work on the Augustinian revival pre Luther that set in motion really the Reformation.andrewbournehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14365466668037323684noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13840519.post-7246523653626184182009-11-01T00:45:30.153-05:002009-11-01T00:45:30.153-05:00One of the most interesting things about the book ...One of the most interesting things about the book "Paul in Fresh Perspective," is how Wright liked to redefine traditional soteriological terms. He redefines the phrase “righteousness of God” (Rom 1:17) as God’s covenant faithfulness to restore harmony back to creation by ridding the world of sin and evil (p.25). He rejects the reformed understanding of this phrase to mean a righteous status conferred to the believer through the gospel. Wright says that justification refers to the way in which God’s people have been redefined (p.111) and on page 122 he says justification means to be declared by God to his people. He seems to deny any aspect of forensic justification or the imputation of Christ’s righteousness. <br />Wright makes three important points in regard to the issue of justification. 1) We are justified not by our faith in Jesus but by Jesus’ faithfulness to God’s covenant plan. 2) The word justification does not mean how one becomes a Christian but it is a statement about how one belongs to the people of God and how you can tell that in the present. 3) Works of the law are not works that one has to perform in order to be saved, but they are works that you have to perform to demonstrate that you are a member of God’s people (p. 112). Lastly, Wright argues that justification must also be seen within its eschatological framework. He says on p. 57, “The whole point about justification by faith is that it is something which happens in the present time (Romans 3:26) as a proper anticipation of the eventual judgment which will be announced, on the basis of the whole life led, in the future (Romans 2:1-16). Until justification is set firmly within this eschatological, as well as covenantal and apocalyptic framework, we shall never be able to understand what Paul is talking about.” This hardly sounds like N.T. Wright holds to a forensic view of Justification.Red Barronhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02804817105261852659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13840519.post-75190215117308273312009-10-31T10:09:45.911-05:002009-10-31T10:09:45.911-05:00Thanks for broadening the discussion. With all the...Thanks for broadening the discussion. With all the boxing in, I am trying to catch my breath. You opened some windows to remaining Protestant while not having to choose between Rome and Geneva.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05209463655273374909noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13840519.post-63568949362741318372009-10-31T10:05:08.739-05:002009-10-31T10:05:08.739-05:00It seems to me that "Wright['s]... view o...It seems to me that "Wright['s]... view of the role of good works in the believer's acceptance before God" is that good works are the fruit of God's acceptance and the markers that will be used as evidence (as in... "What 'evidence' is there of this one possessing 'saving faith alone in Jesus' that I may see to make this determination?") for the final, consuming judgement of the believer.TK of RChttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07674977161497374690noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13840519.post-44545568487939032572009-10-31T09:28:34.597-05:002009-10-31T09:28:34.597-05:00Seems to me that one of the fundamental issues tha...Seems to me that one of the fundamental issues that needs to be fleshed out by Wright is his view of the role of good works in the believer's acceptance before God.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04707821779840617967noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13840519.post-43806990829127493662009-10-31T08:45:13.625-05:002009-10-31T08:45:13.625-05:00The places where high theology meets popular expre...The places where high theology meets popular expression creates fertile ground for mass confusion.<br />The desire to include varying definitions of justification, some of which stand on the periphery of evangelical thought, let alone reformed theology, and others which are, at the very least, departure points from reformed theology, has an impact on the evangelical world. <br />In this case, it has led an evangelical group such as IVCF to formulate a doctrinal statement that someone who hears the words 'God's grace through faith in Christ alone' can processes it as 'God's church and sacraments' and as something to which they can give assent.<br />This is not so much about evangelicals going to Rome, but about them not being able to tell the difference anymore.<br />Grace alone, faith alone, Christ alone. Start dropping any of those alones and things go awry.<br />Gary.Gary Warehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12007830811200430012noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13840519.post-4446662604439775152009-10-31T07:30:44.057-05:002009-10-31T07:30:44.057-05:00Mike,
Thanks for your reflection. I wrote to Colli...Mike,<br />Thanks for your reflection. I wrote to Collin privately about my concerns...<br /><br />I read Collin's piece, and I like that he keeps his finger on the Reformation issues alive today, but the piece is a subtle critique of Tom Wright without enough attention to the biblical debates that are involved. I agree that he suggests Wright is leading folks into RCism and this is not by way of compliment. <br /><br />The statement by Timothy George in the article is telling: he shows that real divide is ecclesiogy and authority, and clearly Wright is not on the RCC side on those issues.Scot McKnighthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12464859313317428105noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13840519.post-26628309260913921812009-10-31T06:57:19.334-05:002009-10-31T06:57:19.334-05:00Strong words Mike. Thanks for the reflection.Strong words Mike. Thanks for the reflection.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com