It is unquestionably true that N. T. Wright would love nothing more than to have Roman Catholics and Protestants sit down together with open Bibles and work out there differences on justificaiton and everything else. It is unquestionably true that he thinks a better understanding of the Bible than either Protestants or Roman Catholics had at the time of Trent would be helpful for this end. Unquestionably he believes that there has been progress in Biblical interpretation since the Reformation and Counter-Reformation.
But to claim Wright is compromising the Protestant distinctives or wants to merge or morph with Roman Catholicism is simply the opposite of the truth.
PostScript: More on What Nt. Wright Really Said to deal with the Catholic smear.
Mark
You do know that the issue around which the Reformers made their stand against Rome was Sola Fide and not things like purgatory or prayers to the saints or for the dead. Yes, they addressed these issues over time, but THE sticking point was justification. Along comes NT Wright announcing that there should be a pox on both their houses and he has discovered a way to resolve the differences with his new and improved understanding of what Paul meant by the doctrine of justification- and , correct me if I have miss read you, you agree with him to some degree- but you insist that your own understanding of the doctrine of justification follows to the ‘T’ the WS. There is a disconnect somewhere here. How do you keep your balance with one foot in NT Wright’s canoe and the other in that of the Westminster divines?? I am not trying to be snide or the like, and I am not trying to ‘trap’ you, but I personally cannot see how you can do both.
Gary I have given an extremely clear example of where and how I agree with Writh and/or the “New Perspective.” Show me how those are incompatible with eh Westminster Standards.
Or go mine for something I’ve said that contradicts the Westminster standards. I’ve written a lot so this shouldn’t be a problem.
Gary,
A few simple questions:
1. Do you think there has been progress in our understanding of the Bible since the Reformation?
2. Do you believe it would be profitable for Roman Catholics and Reformed scholars to sit down together with their Bibles and try to work things out?
This was the point of Mark’s post. He’s not agreeing with everything NTW says about justification or anything else. But the charge that NTW wants to bring us all back to Rome is disingenuous.
Jeff
Riddle me this- does Wright contend that the Reformers
missed the boat on the ‘material’ principle of the whole Reformatuion-Sola Fide?
Alistar McGrath candidly admits that if Wright is right than the Reformers and the Reformation was dead wrong.Are you bold enough to follow Wright down this path?Go ahead if you wish, but you should also stop calling Bishop Wright ‘Reformed”. He most certainly is not.
Sigh.
I disagree with McGrath. I have found much of value in NTW–even some of what he says about justification–and I don’t find myself moving one step in the direction of Rome. Am I just foolish? Get out the ad hominem bag: “if you don’t see that NTW flat-out contradicts the standards, then you’re just stoopid.” NTW defines justification as a forensic, declaratory event, not a transformative one, and that was one of the key issues in the Reformed doctrine of justification. And NTW is operating firmly within the Reformed categories of legal and covenantal understanding, of status, etc., rather than the infusive categories of Rome. NTW would consider grace, for example, to be God’s favor, which Trent rejects in favor of saying that it is some actual stuff God puts in us.
“You do know that the issue around which the Reformers made their stand against Rome was Sola Fide and not things like purgatory or prayers to the saints or for the dead.”
You know that one of the lines of response to ECT was, well, its all well and good that the catholic ECT signers affirm Christocentric justification, but as long as they still have prayers to saints and purgatory, we know they don’t really believe it.
“Riddle me this- does Wright contend that the Reformers
missed the boat on the ‘material’ principle of the whole Reformatuion-Sola Fide?”
No.
But that was one of the absolutely silly things about ECT II: they said, “Oh, we agree on justification by faith alone…but we know that we still have to work out the treasury of merit, the role of Mary, Purgatory, prayers for the dead, etc.” Which is to say–we haven’t actually agreed on justification, since all of those Roman abuses were the practices that struck at the heart of the doctrine. It is historically absurd to think you can agree with the Protestant doctrine of faith alone (which is what ECT II in fact said) and yet keep all of the practices and beliefs which for the Reformers were the practical denial of that doctrine. This means it is also a false dichotomy to say they made their stand for sola fide and not against these other things: those practices were part and parcel of the erroneous doctrine the Reformers were seeking to, well, reform.