Oct
29
2009
Horton’s Review of Wright on Justification
Mike Horton has completed a series of meditations and observations on N.T. Wright’s new book, Justification (IVP, 2009). Printed out it is 33 pages in length. You can see all of them here, or get the links to each post below:
- Introduction
- Justification and God’s Single Plan: The Covenant and History
- Justification and God’s People
- Justification and God’s Righteousness: Imputation and Future Hope
- Justification and God’s Righteousness: Covenant and Eschatology
- Justification, Faith, and Faithfulness: The Works of the Law
- Justification and the Testimony of Paul
- Justification and Romans
- “Works of the Law”–Soteriology and Ecclesiology
- Conclusion
10 Comments
That Wright, he is like SO dangerous. Like for realz. You know he’s just a false teacher sitting around scheming on how to fool unsuspecting evangelicals. That’s why we’ve got to keep publishing stuff against him, son gettin’ dat TRUE WORD out so that all dem bumpkin Christians sitting in their churches not really paying attention to the sermon or not really getting the GOSPEL (!)preached well can know thy TRUTH. How dare he read the Bible slightly differently than the Reformed? Did not the Lord dun prophesieth the demise of those who do not agree with his chosen prophets D. A. Carson and John Piper and their prophetganda machine, the Gospel Coalition? No one comes to the Father but by THIS Gospel, son. Hear dat, foo! All those who read Romans after thy inerrant interpretations of Carson and Piper shall not fail the Bible trivia and sound doctrine test that is sure to be administered by St Peter at them pearly gates up there in Beulah Land, but will have life. Did Wright not read dat part where Jesus dun saith: “Repent, for the time for Reformed doctrine is at hand. Believe in these propositions and thou shalt be saved”. He’s a false teacher, I tell you, a false, false teacher. Keep postin this stuff Justin, those slippery evangelicals need to hear it, and, Lord willing, Soli Deo Gloria (you know what I’m sayin?), they may come to believe in the Gospel Coalition’s Gospel and have eternal life. And we TRUE believers, who believe in TRUTH, in the GOSPEL, in PROPOSITIONZ, in PROPITIATION, in PROPOSITIONZ about PROPITIATION, we need to hear it too, we need to know how right we are and we need to congratulate ourselves one more time about how glorious it is that we got it right and how much better we are than those who think Wright is right.
From an 18 year old to someone clearly older than he, may I be the first to congratulate you for a mature, relevant post to the discussion.
Phil,
I’d invite you to look at the blog comments policy (on the about page) for some guidelines on how to enter a constructive comment.
JT
Well, it wasn’t productive, but you almost have to admire how well he stuck with the phonetic spelling almost all the way through.
I have to say though, I’m confused about whether he’s supposed to be a gangsta, or a backwoods KJV hillbilly, or a hip “new Calvinist” type. Needs to pick one and go with it.
It’s interesting to see that in the reformed world it is becoming more and more acceptable to have differing views on the definition of “the righteousness of God”. I see this as a good thing.
Mike Horton repeatedly makes the interesting observation that Wright actually reflects Reformed teaching in many places where Wright seems to distancing himself from Reformed teaching. It seems that Wright is attacking either a straw man or a modern form of Reformed or Protestant teaching that does not reflect the views of the Reformers at all but a sort of Reformers gone to seed. James Dunn acknowledges that this was his agenda. While Carl Truman attacked him for misrepresenting Luther, Dunn responded saying that he never intended to attack Luther but Bultmann, surely a legitimate target for evangelicals. Wright may be less self aware but it seems that Horton has set him right. But if this is so, modern reformed thinkers need to reexamine what they think and compare it anew with both the Reformers and Paul and see to what extent they have gone to seed.
Timothy – “Reformed” has come to mean different things to different people, as I’m sure you know. So anyone referring to “Reformed” anything had better qualify the term. I trust you have not yet read Wright’s book but suggest that you do. It is an engaging read and at the very worst, you will come away better informed and knowing why you believe what you do. It is clear upon reading the book that he is not in any way trying to attack a “straw man” — at many points he is very clear with whom he disagrees, including citations of various scholars and publications. I have not finished Horton’s article but as of yet do not think it clearly represents Wright in all regards. And to any extent, you might want to read the book itself before questioning the author’s self-awareness and determining who set who straight. You might be pleasantly surprised that Wright’s own sentiment is very similar to yours expressed in the last sentence of your post. He praises the work of Calvin and Luther but exhorts that we must not treat them as infallible but rather the Scriptures. And to that end, the book has lots of exegesis… So drop $15 and grab a copy — it’s worth your time!
So at this point there are 4 comments and one ridiculous, ill informed diatribe. Filibuster is an accurate description chosen by that ‘one’; as in, a lot of hot air expended to avoid any real conclusions
Substantive enough to solicit responses! Clearly, the three who took up the comment felt the obvious point, for they had to relieve themselves of its weight by dismissing it as “ridiculous” and “immature.” Obviously the comment is absurd. But it has a point that the respondents are avoiding as much as they purport dear old Phil is avoiding this thread.
[...] Michael Horton’s review of Wright’s book Justification [...]