-
Philemon 17, check out Wright’s commentary on this some time.
-
An attempt to take orthodoxy away from FV, but at least he admits to what orthodoxy is.
-
“I confess: I always believed that the sermon was more important than the sacrament, until I had young children – at that point, it became impossible to concentrate properly on the sermon, and so my eucharistic theology became much “higher.””
Mark,
I see you linked to my article on Goodwin and then mentioned that I am trying to take orthodoxy away from the FV. Could you explain how this is so? And, further, are you suggesting that *all* the FV says is orthodox? I find it interesting that both you and Scott Clark linked to my articles, but with very different readings!
Mark
I’m not interested in what Scott Clark says. Other than what he thinks will be most damaging to his targets, nothing else affect what he says–certainly not concerns for truth or consitency.
But I may have misread you. Or read too much into “But he’s formulating it in a very different way than some do.” I just assumed an FV reference there. Sorry.
My primary reference was to NT Wright! If you agree with Goodwin and Owen, great!
Yeah, because Wright is so different and I was so ambiguous before… Sure.
I found a terrific new blog and thought of you. Adam just finished writing an article on the FV for wikipedia: http://exlibris.reformedblogs.com/
“Yeah, because Wright is so different and I was so ambiguous before… Sure.”
Not really sure what you mean by this. Are you saying NT Wright on “judgment according to works” = FV (your) understanding?
I’m saying he = Owen/Goodwin/etc
That’s a bit simplistic.
A little. But more like Goodwin than you might think.
Goodwin says final justification is demonstrative.
Wright says initial justification is demonstrative (a badge, recall) because forgiveness happened at the cross, and union with that forgiveness happened by effectual calling by the Spirit.
Wright then says that initial justification is the final verdict brought into the present.