Reading Scripture with the Church Fathers

• Read the Bible holistically - The fathers insist that the narrative of the Bible is a continuous, deeply connected story from Genesis through Revelation. . . . the fathers insist that the biblical narrative reaches its culmination, its thematic climax, with the incarnation, crucifixion and resurrection of the Son of God.

• Read the Bible christologically - For them, Jesus Christ was the key to opening the Old Testament.

• Read the Bible communally - The fathers insisted that exegesis is an ecclesiatical task. It takes place within the church for the church. . . . Patristic exegetes conducted their work in the church for the chruch, an idea foreign to many modern scholars who conduct their work in the academy and largely for the academy.

• Read the Bible within the context and practice of prayer, worship and spiritual formation - Their exegetical work was done in the context of the preparation of sermons or the instruction of catechumens. As they read a text they asked themselves, What is the word of Christ in this text to my congregation? How can I shepherd my flock more effectively through preaching this text well? How is it addressing my heart as well as my mind?

--From Christopher Hall's Reading Scripture with the Church Fathers, 191-96

Wright @ ETS Round-up

Notice the differences in perspective of Wright and several other ETS attendees (see previous post):

Tom Wright's comments at Burk's blog: "Denny–nice to meet you again yesterday. But don’t get too excited. I haven’t retracted anything that I meant in my many, many earlier statements on this subject. How could I, since I was simply stating what Paul states rather than trying to squash him into a dogmatic framework? Sadly I didn’t have time to check anything in my own earlier writings after I received Tom Schreiner’s paper — I was on the road in a complicated trip. Clearly I did say ‘basis’. But — as you will see from my commentary on Romans 2.1-16 — I have always made it clear, as I did yesterday, that I did not mean or intend the kind of thing that clearly some theologians think that word ‘must’ mean. Since the word ‘basis’ is not itself a biblical word I’m not claiming any great status for it. Obviously people have read it without reading the other things I say and then jumped to conclusions which are not warranted by the fuller exposition I give.

I don’t normally look at, let alone respond to, blogsite comments, but a good friend drew my attention to what had been said. Let me say it again: all I am saying is what Paul says in Romans 2 (and elsewhere). Our own technical terms (’basis’ etc) are fluid and flexible in our discourse and, like all summary terms, need to be teased out in terms of the larger discourse — Paul’s, and mine… The point, again, is that by the Spirit those who are already justified by faith have their lives transformed, and the final verdict will be in accordance with that transformation, imperfect though it remains. I thought it was a very good discussion. But I wouldn’t have said that the clarification of ‘basis’ was the highlight! . . . Reflecting overnight, I think two of the key moments in the debate — and it’s a pity you didn’t mention them — were Tom Schreiner’s agreement with me that some of the push-back I have received, appealing to tradition rather than scripture, is basically neo-catholic in its method. This, as I said in my paper, makes it heavily ironic when folk accuse people like me of being crypto-catholic in our theology. It also makes it the more interesting in that it is some of TS’s colleagues who were guilty of that position. Second, TS in his paper, and Frank Thielman in his earlier work, make it clear that they agree with me on the business of ‘extended exile’. This, too, puts them at odds with quite a few of my critics, including again some of TS’s colleagues. But the really good thing about the debate, apart from the cheerful and Christian spirit in which it was carried out, was that we actually discussed some specific texts in considerable detail rather than dealing in slogans. That is what real debates ought to be about, and what blogsites are not always very good at."

Dane Ortlund: "Wright said he has never said final judgment is on the basis of works, which isn't quite true, as Schreiner pointed out a few moments later."

Marc Cortez: "Unquestionably, the biggest take-away for me was Wright’s clarification that he sees final justification as being “in accordance with” rather than “on the basis of” works. Although Wright has always been clear that the works of a Christian are produced by grace through the Spirit, I have always understood him to say that final justification was based on works in a way that made it sound like final justification was not ultimately grounded in the righteousness of Christ alone. By referring to final justification as “in accordance with” works, he makes it clearer that final justification will take our works into account and will be consistent with those works, but that the final justification will ultimately be grounded in God’s grace through Jesus Christ. That clears up what has been a major stumbling block for me in Wright’s system. (In comments on Denny Burk’s blog, Wright argues that this is not a shift on his part, but a clarification of what he has always thought. If so, it would have been nice had he moved earlier to clarify what people have long identified as a major concern in his work.)"

Mike Wittmer: "The statement that received the most attention afterwards was Wright’s claim that to his knowledge he had never said that our final justification is “on the basis of works.” He said that he would gladly correct this wrong view if someone showed him where he had said that. What he means to say is that our final justification is in “accordance with works.” We don’t earn or merit our final justification but we will be seeking for it, and so our final justification is in accordance with—but not on the basis of—our works. Schreiner said in the following Q and A that he did a quick search while Wright was talking and found that Wright had said our final justification is “on the basis of the totality of life lived.” And Michael Bird, in an afternoon paper, said that he nearly fell out of his chair when Wright said that, for in nearly every book on this subject Wright has said that final justification comes “on the basis of a life lived.” I conclude that Wright either writes so much that he can’t keep track of everything he says, or more probably, this is one area where Wright is changing his view, perhaps in response to his critics."

Ardel Caneday: "During N. T. Wright’s presentation, “Justification Yesterday, Today, and Tomorrow,” at the Evangelical Theological Society’s conference in Atlanta, Georgia on Friday, November 19, he made a crucial statement which I cannot quote exactly from memory but the portion I will include in quotation marks is almost exact. At a significant point in his lecture Wright made a statement concerning the apostle Paul's phrase in Romans 2:6 (κατὰ τὰ ἔργα αὐτοῦ) that sounded quite different from what he has written many times in his books. Instead of saying that humans will be judged “on the basis of their deeds” or that they will be judged “on the basis of their whole life lived,” he stated that humans will be judged “in accordance with their deeds.” Then he paused and went off script, or at least gave the impression that he went off script, and stated that he has been wrongly charged with claiming that Paul states that God will judge humans “on the basis of deeds.” He also stated that if anyone could locate where he stated that judgment will be “on the basis of deeds,” he would like to be shown the place so that he could correct it.

During the panel discussion that followed Wright’s lecture, attended by an overflowing room large ballroom, Tom Schreiner indicated that he had located Wright’s statement that God will judge “on the basis of the whole life lived.,” which is not difficult to find in many of his writings. . . . Yet, one disappointment that I heard many times was that attendees wished that Wright had presented the needed correction as a full and clear acknowledgment of his error of writing rather than present it as a needed correction of his readers’ failure to read his written words correctly or of his hearer’s failure to hear his spoken words correctly. Alas! How difficult it is to acknowledge wrong, especially to do so publicly and especially to do so when the wrong is so widely published in one’s own words. Is it unreasonable to think that N. T. Wright owes all his readers a brief published statement to acknowledge his error and to correct his error?"

Denny Burk responds to Wright's comments. Burk writes, "I concede that in his own reckoning he has not changed his view, but I still think that what he said on Friday is very difficult to reconcile with some of his earlier published work." He also quotes from Schreiner: "I am delighted that Tom [Wright] now speaks of the final judgment as one that will be in accordance with our works instead of on the basis of our works. I think this adjustment and clarification is exactly right and does not contradict the idea that our righteousness is in Christ… I am in full agreement with his formulation: we are judged according to our works, but not on the basis of our works."

Wright @ ETS

Last week was the annual meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society in the ATL. I really wanted to go, but the flow was too low. The theme of the meeting was the doctrine of justification and the keynotes were Tom Schreiner, N.T. Wright, and Frank Thielman. I have learned much from all three of these men and would have loved to sit in.

I have a love/hate relationship with Wright. He is one of the best writers I read and I even have a special place on my bookshelves for him (not insignificant for bibliophiles). I have benefited greatly from much of what he has written. His work on Jesus, the resurrection, ethics, empire, the new earth, and most of Paul's theology is wonderful. However, there are a few things, some more important than others, that drive me crazy about his work. He is a controversial figure among most Protestants and the biggest point of controversy is his repeated insistence that final justification is "on the basis of the whole life lived." I can't count how many times I have read or heard him say that. This of course contradicts one of the key points of the Protestant Reformation. A clearer way to put his view is that final justification is on the basis of works.

Pastor Piper was so disturbed by this that he wrote a whole book calling Wright to be clearer on this point. A big part of Piper's book was dealing with this very issue: the role of works in final justification. Wright, in turn, churned out a book in response to Piper (sort of). Wright never really clarified himself on this key point, so in this sense it was not much of a response. Wright never tires of claiming that no one understands him.

It was for this reason, that I was very excited to hear that Dr. Schreiner would be replacing John Piper on the panel at this year's ETS conference. Schreiner is super gracious and incredibly sharp. Well, all that to say, it appears that Wright has changed his view. Those who have followed him will know that he has progressively become more Protestant in his views of justification (compare What Saint Paul Really Said with his later Paul or his latest work Justification). Dr. Denny Burk reports that he has changed his mind about his view of justification "on the basis of the whole life lived." I am only basing my thoughts on Burk's report, but when Wright was asked about his belief that "justification is on the basis of the whole life lived," he said he didn't recall writing such a thing. I find this incredible. This point has been at the heart of all the controversy (see here and here.) Most of the flaming darts thrown at Wright by Reformed people were lit with these statements in mind. There is even a footnote in Justification, where Wright says, "I am aware that John Piper puts a great deal of store by technical meanings, within Reformed debates, of the word 'basis' (e.g., Justification, pp. 117-18). I have to say that, since Paul does not use a phrase which corresponds to this, I am not convinced that this is the way to clarity" (258 n. 7).

Burk provides the following quotations from Wright's work:

“Paul has . . . spoken in Romans 2 about the final justification of God’s people on the basis of their whole life.” -Paul in Fresh Perspective, p. 121

“Present justification declares, on the basis of faith, what future justification will affirm publicly (according to [Rom.] 2:14–16 and 8:9–11)on the basis of the entire life.” -What Saint Paul Really Said, p. 129

“This declaration, this vindication, occurs twice. It occurs in the future, as we have seen, on the basis of the entire life a person has led in the power of the Spirit—that is, it occurs on the basis of ‘works’ in Paul’s redefined sense.” -”New Perspectives on Paul,” 260

Many more could be added. Burk writes,

"Nevertheless, Wright conceded in his exchange with Schreiner that if he did use the phrase “on the basis of” that he would want to “nuance” it to mean “in accordance with” works. Don’t miss that. Wright believes that justification is in accordance with works, not on the basis of them. This is huge in my view, and I don’t want anyone to miss the significance of this statement. This brings him much closer to the traditional Protestant position (and the biblical one too!), and that is no small matter considering how the debate has unfolded thus far."

I agree whole heartedly. This is huge. One part of me wants to be thankful and applaud Wright for his humility, but another part finds it unbelievable that he could not recall saying that justification is "on the basis of the whole life lived." It is one thing to say, "Yes, I have rethought my position and no longer think 'basis' is the most helpful word to use." It is quite another to deny you ever said such a thing, when it is so easily shown that this language abounds in his works. Either way, I praise the Lord that he has nuanced his view. In my mind, this is a very important distinction. I look forward to seeing how all this works out in his forthcoming beast of a book on Paul.

(Also see the TGC blog)

Union with Christ in Eph 1.3-14

• Ephesians 1:3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places,

• Ephesians 1:4 even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. In love

• Ephesians 1:5 he predestined us for adoption as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will,

• Ephesians 1:6 to the praise of his glorious grace, with which he has blessed us in the Beloved.

• Ephesians 1:7 In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of his grace,

• Ephesians 1:9 making known to us the mystery of his will, according to his purpose, which he set forth in Christ

• Ephesians 1:10 as a plan for the fullness of time, to unite all things in him, things in heaven and things on earth.

• Ephesians 1:11 In him we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to the purpose of him who works all things according to the counsel of his will,

• Ephesians 1:12 so that we who were the first to hope in Christ might be to the praise of his glory.

• Ephesians 1:13 In him you also, when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and believed in him, were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit,

Church Greeters & Hand Sanitizer

(Props: T Wax)

Missional Ecclesiology

"A proper, biblical ecclesiology looks at everything the church is and does in relation to the mission of God in the world. The church does not exist for itself, but for participation in God's mission of reconciliation. 'Mission' is not just an activity carried out by special people in faraway places. Mission is the character of the church in whatever context it exists."

--Lois Barrett in Treasure in Clay Jars, IX

2011 NIV Available Online

Check it out (with notes and a Doug Moo video) here.