When are Reformed guys going to wake up and start doing the exegesis and STOP quoting the Westminster Confession. One thing that is so appealing about Wright is that he at least deals with the text in trying to advance this discussion. While he may be influenced by his forebears, I do not think he quotes them as though they were somehow authoritative. But it seems that many in the reformed camp are in serious danger of elevating the Westminster Confession and the Reformed Church Fathers (Luther and Calvin to be specific) to a level they do not belong.

I know that Seifrid and others have gone to the text and dealt with some of these issues, so I want to give him credit where it is due. But this panel got off on the wrong start.

I plead with all of you in the reformed and/or evangelical camp to go to the texts and deal with them. Forget about the Confessions, Creeds, and Fathers just for a moment to try to advance this discussion. I think we can learn a lot from one another.

I am by no means a new perspective guy. I used to be a hardline reformed presbyterian. I would hear things like, oh “Wright is a heretic,” but they would have hardly any idea where he is coming from. They have not listened to the lectures, read the commentaries, or the articles. It is time we deal with this issue by going straight to the text.

Please, please, please, don’t mention the “WC” (Westminster Conffesion) word again, or the “L” (Luther) word, or the “C” (Calvin) word. I can’t bear it any longer, and I suspect there are a lot of other reformed people out there who share my feelings. And many in the reformed wonder why this generation of seminary students and just bible students in general are parting ways with the “traditional” reformed teachings, because Reformed folk are committing the same error as Catholics in using the WCF in a quasi absolutized sense.

Wake up! Wake up! Wake up O Reformed ones, or this new perspective giant that was awoken will be around a lot longer than you might hope.

Come on guys.

On re-reading your comments, I’ve thought that you may have meant that you spent fifteen minutes on your reply and not as an indicator of your time spent reading the comments. If that is the case, I apologize. If the “fifteen minutes” remark was hyperbole, I apologize for not recognizing it. If the “fifteen minutes” remark is an actual time remark, then my concerns stand.

David Rogers

You said that you would want a moratorium on “debating this stuff on the internet and discussion of theology unless it can be related to pressing rather than abstract concerns.”

Who is the arbiter of “pressing concerns”? Are you? Would you tell us the criteria for determining what matters relate to “worship” or “mission”?

Every heresy that has arisen in the church (consult church history) arose out of “worship” or “mission” matters. The Church has engaged in these alleged “abstract” theological matters because pastors saw the effect that certain beliefs and practices had on “worship” and “ministry.” The earliest Church theologians were pastors.

I am a rural church pastor, and I see the effects of theological ignorance and the inability to theologically discern things wreak havoc in the everyday lives of people.

I have specific criticisms of this particular theological forum for its particular weaknesses but not for the practice of the format itself.

Yes, power and prestige is a problem among academic and theological debate. It also among the so-called “practical”. I’ve seen numerous examples of condescending pride and prestige in the “more practical, more devotional than thou” crowd.

Sure, God does not need the intellectual crowd with their book-learnin’ but He also does not need the ignorant with their book burnin’.

If you only took fifteen minutes to read and assess all that was discussed in the comments above, then I fear for your ability to instruct others how to discern all the nonsense that is out there in the world that pays no attention to theological matters and how they shape virtually every belief and practice in this world.

With sincere and open willingness to further discuss,

David Rogers
Pastor

I propose a moratorium on debating this stuff on the internet, and discussion of theology unless it can be related to pressing rather than abstract concerns. The last thing Paul was guilty of, or any of the biblical writers for most part, was abstraction or vain intellectual masturbation (harsh words but i can’t think of a better description). Most of this stuff is arguments about “chicken or the egg” type questions, often simply repeating old territory that gets people nowhere. I’ve heard this debate about a million time on blogs and its getting old.

I can’t believe i wasted 15 minutes reading and writing all this.

Mat wrote:

“How can the panelists insist on exegeting Genesis 15:6 with Paul to the exclusion of James’ explicit exegesis of Genesis 15:6. They throw James a small bone, but ultimately do not take him seriously. Wright’s view seems to do a better job of this, understanding that faith and obedience are part of the same coin. There is no attempt by the panelists to harmonize their view of justification with all of the Bible. It sounds like their mistaken view of James is much like Luther’s.”

My reply:

See Dr. Schreiner (one of the panelists) and Dr. Caneday’s The Race Set Before Us: A Biblical Theology of Perseverance and Assurance to see just how serious he is about obedience and perseverance. My understanding is that at the recent “John 3:16″ conference the book was accused of being in essential agreement with Trent!

One would think that the fact that someone with Dr. Schreiner’s strong views on the necessity of perseverance would find Wright’s formulations on justification problematic would cause some to take a second look. The same goes for Piper, who has in the past been also accused of legalism by “free grace” antinomians.

See Dr. Schreiner (one of the panelists) and Dr. Caneday’s The Race Set Before Us: A Biblical Theology of Perseverance and Assurance to see just how serious he is about obedience and perseverance.

One would think that the fact that someone with his strong views on the subject would find Wright’s formulations on justification problematic would cause some to take a second look. The same goes for Piper, whose has in the past been accused of legalism by “free grace” proponents.

On whether regeneration is more fundamental for Wright than justification, I would have to say yes, if you mean “fundamental for becoming a Christian.” I don’t know if he would like us using the word “regeneration” rather than “call,” though. What Wright believes Paul uses the word “call” to refer to is what Reformed systematicians generally refer to as regeneration (I think).

You are really correct that he is much closer to Reformed theology than is often thought, at least at the systematic level. There are a few remaining points of real substantive disagreement, but none of them affect the core of soteriology in the way that his critics often think. However, the exegetical and semantic differences are legion, and I personally feel like those really matter because they determine what preachers ought to say when they speak on the relevant biblical texts.

Having said all of this to clarify what Wright thinks, I would also like to iterate again that I do not think that he has gotten everything quite right. I don’t have time to ferret out here what I think is good and bad, but it would be a mistake to assume from my explications here that I am a proponent of the Wrightian view (if that’s a word). I do think that he has made certain contributions that ought to be taken on board, but I am often not happy with certain things that he denies.

Thanks to all (especially James, who has written to me the most) for their generous tone throughout this discussion. I often don’t participate in blog discussions because they can become so vitriolic, and this was has been a fine exception to that pattern.

Thanks again, Dr. Burk, for hosting the forum and letting us discuss it here.

Andrew