Bishop Tom Wright:

But this means that the New Testament is not merely a true commentary on Christianity.  It has been pointed out in relation to B B Warfield’s theological position that Warfield was always in danger of saying that Christianity would be totally true and would totally work even if there weren’t a Bible to tell us all about it (but that it so happens that we have set an authoritative book which does precisely that, from as it were the sidelines) [See D H Kelsey, The Uses of Scripture in Recent Theology (SCM 1975) esp, eg, 21 f.].  But, according to Paul in Romans 15 and elsewhere, the Bible is itself a key part of God’s plan.

Interestingly, the late Cornelius Van Til got an entirely different impression of Warfield’s view:

Scripture is a factor in the redeeming work of God, a component part of the series of his redeeming acts, without which that series would be incomplete and so far inoperative for its main end.

The difference in Van Til is that his reference comes not from a secondary source but from Warfield himself (“The Biblical Idea of Revelation,” collected in The Inspiration & Authority of the Bible, p. 80).

Warfield writes that revelation is for the sake of knowledge, “though not, of course, for its own sake, but for the sake of salvation.”

No bare series of unexplained acts can be thought, however, adapted to produce knowledge, especially if these acts be, as in this case, of a highly transcendental character. Nor can this particular series of acts be thought to have as its main design the production of knowledge; its main design is rather to save man. No doubt the production of knowledge of the Divine grace is one of the means by which this main design of the redemptive acts of God is attained. But this only renders it the more necessary that the proximate result of producing knowledge should not fail; and it is doubtless for this reason that the series of redemptive acts of God has not been left to explain itself, but the explanatory word has been added to it. Revelation thus appears, however, not as the mere reflection of the redeeming work of God in the minds of men, but as a factor in the redeeming work of God, a component part of the series of his redeeming acts, without which that series would be incomplete and so far inoperative for its main end. Thus, the Scriptures represent it, not confounding revelation with the series of the redemptive acts of God, but placing it among the redemptive acts of God and giving it a function as a substantive element in the operations by which the merciful God saves sinful men.

I suppose if one went searching through Warfield’s work one might find him saying something different at his worst. But I don’t want Warfield or Wright or anyone else to be portrayed at their worst.

When we are told that a majority is favorable to killing Terri because they too would wish to die if they were in her condition, what does that tell us?

Basically, if your life does not measure up to a certain kind of success then life is not worth living.

We have a population in favor of killing Terfi for the same reason we have a great many Anorexics and Bulimiacs. Body image tyranny.

In his essay, “The Nonimputation of Christ’s Righteousness,” Robert Gundry considers whether “faith counted as righteousness” is Pauline shorthand for “faith is the instrument by which righteousness is received” (p. 19 of Justification: What’s At Stake in the Current Debates). This strikes me as entirely too wooden a way of dealing with words, and a strategy that leads Gundry into oversights.

For example, Gundry sites two texts that he thinks (correctly, in my view) are relevant:

• Romans 2.26: “his [a Gentile law-keeper’s] uncircumcision will be counted as circumcision, won’t it?”
• Romans 9.8: “the children of the promise are counted as seed.”

He opines: “Now it is hard, if not impossible, to think that Romans 2.26 presents a Gentile law-keeper’s uncircumcision as the instrument by which an alien circumcision is received. Or that Romans 9.8 presents the children of promise as the instrument by which an alien seed is received” (p. 21).

First of all, in my opinion, Gundry is exploiting an overzealous statement–the statement that Paul’s terminology is “shorthand.” That leads peole to think it is “code” or something equally artificial. I think we can allow Paul means what he says, that “faith is regarded as righteousness.” The point is that we are allowed to ask why faith is so regarded, especially if it must be faith in Jesus Christ. If the answer to the question is, “Because Christ’s righteousness is imputed to believers,” then we have good grounds for coming to the traditional conclusions, whether Paul is using shorthand or not.

But secondly, do we not have in Gundry’s two verses a good prima facie argument for the imputation of Christ’s righteousness? Consider Romans 9.8. Paul begins his letter summarizing his Gospel in which Jesus is named the “seed” of David. And it is easy to find in Paul’s thought the idea that Jesus’ crucifixion is the true circumcision of the flesh. Believers are reckoned as circumcized, reckoned as seed, reckoned as righteousness. Why? Because they believe in the true circumcision, the true seed, the true Righteous One. They belong to him and all he has is theirs.

I believe Gundry is ultimately wrong about his verdicts on traditional theological formulations. He seems too “Biblicist” if you will, cutting off any statements that aren’t explicitly Pauline. In my opinion theology today is not simply to repristinate Paul (because that would mean doing nothing more than reading his own statements verbatim) but to apply what he says to the issues he face today (and, yes, have faced in the history of the Church including the Reformation).

However, I haven’t been terribly impressed with the way in which others have responded to Gundry. I had hopes for John Piper’s book, but for reasons like what I mention here, I fear it may not be as helpful as it should or could be.

D. A. Carson’s essay in this same volume, however, makes some good points against Gundry’s arguments. I’ll review his essay when I have a chance. It is marred in some ways by some really unnecessary words. For now, I will just say, that while Gundry’s denial of certain theological formulations is mistaken, I wish more people would show some interest in the text of Paul (and the rest of the Bible). It is one thing (and a necessary one) to say, “Our statements match up with Paul’s claims.” It is another to ask, “Why did Paul use those specific statements? Why did he say that faith was reckoned as righteousness?” If we believe the Bible is inspired then those questions should be worth investigaing.