Wright's "Justification"

Kevin DeYoung offers his thoughts and questions about N.T. Wright's latest book Justification. 

Wright is right more often than he is wrong. But I don’t think he is always right, nor is he always clear.

Comments

[MijkV]

The fact that DeYoung agrees with much of what Wright has to say is simply telling of the fact that the Reformed tradition has been effectively critiqued by the New Perspective over the past 20 years.

DeYoung then tries to tidy up his tradition with the claim that viewing the gospel as "God’s-single-plan-through-Israel-for the world" is something that Reform theologians have been doing all along, but this is simply false. Many have and still do believe that there were two plans... plan A, the Law; and plan B, justification by grace through faith. Plan A didn't work out so well so it had to be scrapped, and now we're on to the new-and-improved Plan B, praise God. Calling this view a single plan doesn't make it so.

[Curt Parton]

Many have and still do believe that there were two plans... plan A, the Law; and plan B, justification by grace through faith. Plan A didn't work out so well so it had to be scrapped, and now we're on to the new-and-improved Plan B, praise God.

Nobody is saying that this viewpoint hasn't existed, and I didn't get that from DeYoung's posts. But to write as if no one prior to the New Perspective emphasized the singularity of God's plan is simply incorrect, as DeYoung rightly points out. Wright does frequently come across as condescending toward viewpoints that he deems inferior. This repeated implication that 'nobody else gets this' seems a little arrogant, and is one characteristic that has marred much of his otherwise insightful work.

Many non-NP scholars have shown a willingness to incorporate helpful aspects of the New Perspective---especially those that correspond to and help clarify or sharpen existing OP understanding---without buying the whole thing hook, line and sinker. I've especially appreciated Doug Moo's thoughts on this, and I think DeYoung's analysis of Wright's book also adds clarity to the discussion and is well thought out and balanced.

[Glenn Jones]

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/special/justification_june09.pdf

Just thought you all would like to see this helpful PDF on the issues.

[MijkV]

Curt,

Agreed. Wright may overstate his case, but this may be symptomatic of his writing to a more popular level where careful and nuanced arguments don't sell quite as many books. Also, many Americans tend to mistake someone as condescending and arrogant when they are simply being British ;)

I also really appreciate Moo. I found that his commentary on Romans builds on Sanders' better points (without going fully NP) and his work is that much more solid for it. But that was the point of my first paragraph which I think DeYoung was trying to downplay.

DeYoung seems to look back on the history of Reform theology with rose-colored glasses:
"Much of the theology I read predates the New Perspective and it gets many of the same 'discoveries.'" Really? Douglas Moo's commentary isn't that much different from that of Charles Hodge?

No, many Reform theologians have been sharpened by the NP and their theology is better for it. Here's hoping that this theology eventually makes its way to the pew.

[Francis Beckwith]

"Wright does frequently come across as condescending toward viewpoints that he deems inferior. This repeated implication that 'nobody else gets this' seems a little arrogant, and is one characteristic that has marred much of his otherwise insightful work."

Imagine if he also claimed that no one got the right view until, well, 1517. :-)

[Brad]

Hi Francis, I've spent time researching some of the particulars surrounding the developement of doctrine as it regards the Protestant view of justification by faith alone. Which you've made reference to in you last sentence. You have[as Roman Catholic] a mountain of historical documentation versus a mole hill supporting the opposing view, although there are significant traces of historical record to be found, demonstrating that is isn't a novel idea appearing only in the 1500's.

It is the right of the supreme power to write the epithet, and it usually isn't going to make the loser look in his best light which the Roman Church has done as it set about to squash the doctrine [understandably] since it is "heretical" by Romes standard.

Truth is that there are a lot of Roman doctrines that have taken centuries to develope also, some to eventually become sacraments. This charge against the Reformation is severely damaged when the rock throwers live in glass houses. Roman Catholicism is not as doctrinally unified as is generally accepted.

Here:
http://heidelblog.wordpress.com/2009/07/16/on-perspicuity-and-the-power-of-the-word/#comments

is a url to link to another discussion that had similar things to say and gave me much to think about as I continue to survey information surroundng this topic.

Just to comment on N.T. Wright, until his most recent work, he was regarded well in Reformed circles, but obviously the view of justification he is advancing has changed his standing.

[Perry Robinson]

Brad,

I think many make the mistake of seeing the justification issue as Rome or Wittenberg/Geneava, when the matter is much wider. None of the Eastern Churches, and even those beyond the borders of the once Roman empire know of this idea of faith as a valuelss instrument that is a conduit for a transfer of moral credit. In other cases where it is equally widely rejected Protestants do not even flinch to join in the condemnation and just reherse the historical arguments.

For my part the problem with Wright's account as I see it is that while the Protestant divide between our righteousness and God's righteousness is still present in Wright, how will he treat the notion of glory which doesn't seem so amenable to that kind of division.

[Brad]

Hi Perry, I dont think it's accurate to call the Reformed view of justification and the role and importance of faith in
the life of the regenerated a "conduit to transfer moral credit".

A simplistic characature of Protestantism may fit that line, but it's much deeper as are most others views of justification, including Roman Catholic and Eastern/Russian Orthodox. I'm looking [or trying to look] further behind the characatures to see the reasonableness of the views, and then work back to the premises that drove the formulation of a view. From there, I try to see what presuppositions are ultimate and if they are biblical. I am not saying that you aren't capable or even knowlegeable about the Reformed view, [I've seen you at Green Baggins so I know better], I just am reacting to the line[one I haven't actually heard before]

I think Wright has mutilated the idea of grace alone, and slides in a works based system because he cannot accept a legal declaration. This is why he's lost favor in Reformed circles even if some Protestants are receiving his views. I think there are subtle ideas that on the surface seem to be compatible, or even beneficial, but are [according to the Reformed understanding], a different gospel.

What do you mean by linking righteousness and glory? Are you arguing for a form of *actual* righteousness in men, and if so does this merit or contribute anything towards [a final] justification [in the Orthodox understanding]?