I’ve been following the New Perspective on Paul debate, as it’s called, with N.T. Wright being one of the most attacked theologians (although he is a critic of NPP himself!). The NPP challenges in some ways the Reformed view of justification. I found a summary of his beliefs, which may on the surface appear to not be too different from Reformed theology, but is rich with meaning and theology.
Justification by faith, the verdict issued in the present time over gospel faith which anticipates the verdict issued in the future over the entire life, thus produces the solid assurance of membership, now and in the future, in the single family promised to Abraham, which as I have already stressed is the family whose sins have been forgiven, since the purpose of the covenant in the first place was always to deal with sin. Justification in the present tells every believer that she or he is a beloved, forgiven child of God, a fact which must at once be put into practice in terms of full membership in God’s people, full dining rights at the family table. Justification by faith in the present is therefore equally about (a) the sigh of relief that I don’t have to earn my status in God’s people, simply to receive it, and (b) the definition of the Christian community in terms of nothing more nor less than faith itself.
I’m only posting this today because I’m vouching for Wright in that he does not offer a wildly different view of justification, but perhaps a more biblical view than we’ve traditionally understood (even though it’s probably just nuanced a bit more).
My assessment is that some theologians and pastors, if somebody takes away their traditional way of proving something (assurance of salvation, eternal security, or similar), yet gives them a richer explanation, with more depth, and ends up at the same point, they stand up and complain with the loudest of objections, whereas instead they should sit down, shut up, learn, and then raise their own points, with grace and generosity.
Maybe I’m not willing to learn, but it really frustrates me when people aren’t willing to “hear out an argument to the end.” Wright himself says, “If human maturity is evidenced by delayed gratification, one sign of Christian maturity may be a readiness to hear the argument through to the end, rather than what many Christians are eager to do, ‘short-circuiting’ the argument in the interests of ‘quick fix’ spirituality or missiology.”
I wholeheartedly agree!
No comments yet
Comments are closed