Comments on: Michael Horton's Review of N.T. Wright's "Justification" http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/trevinwax/2009/10/28/michael-hortons-review-of-n-t-wrights-justification/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=michael-hortons-review-of-n-t-wrights-justification Kingdom People - Living on Earth as Citizens of Heaven Thu, 09 Feb 2012 20:45:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Richard W. Wilson http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/trevinwax/2009/10/28/michael-hortons-review-of-n-t-wrights-justification/#comment-5413 Richard W. Wilson Wed, 04 Nov 2009 09:10:26 +0000 http://trevinwax.com/?p=4483#comment-5413 Oops. The last sentence was intended to be part of a separate comment. Separate, yet in my thought somewhat more fundamental. The issue gets addressed by Horton early in his discussion. Wright Wednesdays: part 4 Wright's main error according to Horton seems to be "surrendering the imputation of Christ's righteousness," and the "biblicism" which leads him to do so. Horton says: '“Biblicism,” the assumption that a concept must be stated in so many words in the Bible in order for it to attain the status of a biblical doctrine, is apparent in Wright’s rhetorical question: “if ‘imputed’ righteousness is so utterly central, so nerve-janglingly vital, so standing-and-falling-church important as John Piper makes out, isn’t it strange that Paul never actually came straight out and said it?” (46).' The strangeness of Horton's argument may be lost to most conservatives, perhaps, but the ascendancy of tradition over the Word of God hangs in the balance of this confusion. He says: How would Wright defend the doctrine of the Trinity? Or the hypostatic union in the incarnation? Systematic and historical theology appeal to a host of concepts and terms that are not found expressly in Scripture that are nevertheless crucial for stating precisely the intention of the whole teaching of Scripture on a given topic. So, how exactly are doctrines not explicitly in Scripture "crucial" for stating God's intentions? Excuse me? Whose words are we most concerned with here? Whose thoughts? This is not an academic question, fellow believers. The recent/current discussion started by ChristianityToday regarding evangelical and Roman Catholic divergence (and confluence?) is a reminder to me of an incomplete dialogue. That Beckwith in his return to Roman Catholocism can cite the lack of scriptural explicitness of Trinitarian doctrine as reason to incline toward Rome and Horton can argue against Wright's biblicism with a similar argument suggests we haven't really integrated _sola scriptura_ into our theological discourse. In any case, Horton's use of this argument seems to me a bit bizarre. Is is really OK to base our doctrines on whatever we find "implicit" though not explicit in scripture? Precisely where do we define doctrinal boundaries if that is our bottom line hermeneutic? Doesn't this lead us toward the nebulous and nefarious realm of the allegorical, if not the simply symbolic, rather than the textual-historical (however speculative the latter may be)? Something to think about. All is best in Christ, Richard W. Wilson Oops. The last sentence was intended to be part of a separate comment. Separate, yet in my thought somewhat more fundamental. The issue gets addressed by Horton early in his discussion. Wright Wednesdays: part 4
Wright’s main error according to Horton seems to be “surrendering the imputation of Christ’s righteousness,” and the “biblicism” which leads him to do so. Horton says:
‘“Biblicism,” the assumption that a concept must be stated in so many words in the Bible in order for it to attain the status of a biblical doctrine, is apparent in Wright’s rhetorical question: “if ‘imputed’ righteousness is so utterly central, so nerve-janglingly vital, so standing-and-falling-church important as John Piper makes out, isn’t it strange that Paul never actually came straight out and said it?” (46).’

The strangeness of Horton’s argument may be lost to most conservatives, perhaps, but the ascendancy of tradition over the Word of God hangs in the balance of this confusion. He says:

How would Wright defend the doctrine of the Trinity? Or the hypostatic union in the incarnation? Systematic and historical theology appeal to a host of concepts and terms that are not found expressly in Scripture that are nevertheless crucial for stating precisely the intention of the whole teaching of Scripture on a given topic.

So, how exactly are doctrines not explicitly in Scripture “crucial” for stating God’s intentions? Excuse me? Whose words are we most concerned with here? Whose thoughts? This is not an academic question, fellow believers.

The recent/current discussion started by ChristianityToday regarding evangelical and Roman Catholic divergence (and confluence?) is a reminder to me of an incomplete dialogue. That Beckwith in his return to Roman Catholocism can cite the lack of scriptural explicitness of Trinitarian doctrine as reason to incline toward Rome and Horton can argue against Wright’s biblicism with a similar argument suggests we haven’t really integrated _sola scriptura_ into our theological discourse.

In any case, Horton’s use of this argument seems to me a bit bizarre. Is is really OK to base our doctrines on whatever we find “implicit” though not explicit in scripture? Precisely where do we define doctrinal boundaries if that is our bottom line hermeneutic? Doesn’t this lead us toward the nebulous and nefarious realm of the allegorical, if not the simply symbolic, rather than the textual-historical (however speculative the latter may be)?

Something to think about.
All is best in Christ,
Richard W. Wilson

]]> By: Richard W. Wilson http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/trevinwax/2009/10/28/michael-hortons-review-of-n-t-wrights-justification/#comment-5412 Richard W. Wilson Wed, 04 Nov 2009 08:16:53 +0000 http://trevinwax.com/?p=4483#comment-5412 OK, I see in the latter sections of Horton's reflections that he does get specific about the texts. I think to some extent he may misunderstand what those texts, like II Cor 5:19, etc., are about, but that's OK since that is what NTW is keen on arguing. This is not a text which should be parsed simply as either about an "imputed foreign righteosness" (a la the old perspective) or "an infusion of moral righteousness" (a la the Roman Catholic inclination). It takes a bit more theological subtlety and perspicacity than Horton seems capable of (much more than I myself at this point) to see just what Wright says about this text, but his critique appears all too "either or" simplistic to me. Some of Horton's arguments merely affirm what NTW also argues, to whit, that the original Calvinistic reformed thought comes closer to Paul than later Reformed--old perspective--theology. So, considerable portions of this discussion seems to merely miss the point. All the differences between the old perspective and the new ones, or perhaps between the former and some as yet to be clarified newer (yet original?) perspective appear to me to revolve around the sometimes too precisely formulated "imputation" of Christ's righteousness and final judgment of his followers in relations to their works, as they are regularly considered as manifesting Christ's own righteousness. There is probably not a 'justification' for the final status of believers being determined on an "either-or" basis concerning this particular theological argument. So, often, as might be discerned in the Spirit from Scripture, trusting in Christ tends to leap the bounds of our theological categories. All the best to all in Christ, Richard W. Wilson What continues to concern me otherwise, however, is the oddness of a particular kind of argument that keeps popping up in evangelical dialogue. OK, I see in the latter sections of Horton’s reflections that he does get specific about the texts. I think to some extent he may misunderstand what those texts, like II Cor 5:19, etc., are about, but that’s OK since that is what NTW is keen on arguing. This is not a text which should be parsed simply as either about an “imputed foreign righteosness” (a la the old perspective) or “an infusion of moral righteousness” (a la the Roman Catholic inclination). It takes a bit more theological subtlety and perspicacity than Horton seems capable of (much more than I myself at this point) to see just what Wright says about this text, but his critique appears all too “either or” simplistic to me.

Some of Horton’s arguments merely affirm what NTW also argues, to whit, that the original Calvinistic reformed thought comes closer to Paul than later Reformed–old perspective–theology. So, considerable portions of this discussion seems to merely miss the point.

All the differences between the old perspective and the new ones, or perhaps between the former and some as yet to be clarified newer (yet original?) perspective appear to me to revolve around the sometimes too precisely formulated “imputation” of Christ’s righteousness and final judgment of his followers in relations to their works, as they are regularly considered as manifesting Christ’s own righteousness. There is probably not a ‘justification’ for the final status of believers being determined on an “either-or” basis concerning this particular theological argument. So, often, as might be discerned in the Spirit from Scripture, trusting in Christ tends to leap the bounds of our theological categories.
All the best to all in Christ,
Richard W. Wilson

What continues to concern me otherwise, however, is the oddness of a particular kind of argument that keeps popping up in evangelical dialogue.

]]> By: Richard W. Wilson http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/trevinwax/2009/10/28/michael-hortons-review-of-n-t-wrights-justification/#comment-5411 Richard W. Wilson Sat, 31 Oct 2009 15:37:44 +0000 http://trevinwax.com/?p=4483#comment-5411 Trevin, I appreciate your collecting these links as they consolidate in one place the continuity of the Mike Horton review/critique of N T Wright's _Justification and God’s Righteousness: Imputation and the Future Hope_. I think that Horton hasn't understood the differentiation NTW makes, based as he sees it from scripture, between salvation and justification; Horton's argument seems to conflate the two. Although Horton affirms some aspects of Wright's critique of Piper: "[he] correctly rejects Piper’s definition of “righteousness” as “God’s concern for God’s own glory,” he seems to argue against other parts without identifying what specific parts that might be. His argument doesn't tell us where NTW disagrees with his own view when he says things like: "However, none of this future hope is conceivable apart from the repeated emphasis of Paul on the present justification of the ungodly by imputed Christ’s righteousness to all who trust in Christ." How does this trump NTW's own view in relation to scripture? In later argument he seems to just assume the traditional "old perspective" without relationship to scripture when he comments saying "Remarkably, Wright accuses the old perspective (or at least Piper) of down-playing the law-court metaphor (68). This is highly ironic, given the fact that the grounding of justification in the law-court (imputation rather than infusion) has been the heart of the debate between Reformation and Roman Catholic interpretations." "Law court context" doesn't automatically imply traditional understandings of "imputation." This is a _non sequitur_. Surely, "Wright must be aware of the reformers’ reluctant but firm criticism of Augustine and the medieval view at just this point (confusing justification and sanctification)," and he does, but the eschatological referent in Paul's thought according to NTW connects them in a way the reformers didn't recognize. Likewise, it seems, Horton doesn't recognize the difference between salvation as imputation of Christ's righteosness to the believer and salvation of those who are "in Christ." Ultimately, it appears that the crucial issue relates to concerns regarding The danger, ,,, in making faith the condition of present justification and works the condition of an eschatological justification in the future." However, for me, and I think for NTW, the danger is rather in ignoring how Paul and other NT writers and the teaching of Jesus present the criteria of works in relation to judgment. If Jesus and the Apostles present eschatological judgment as dependent on evidence of the avoidance of unfaithfulness in works why would we resist the conclusion NTW asserts in concert with them? Maybe it is just me, or perhaps it is being so late in the night-morning, but Horton seems to lack substantive cogency as his review proceeds into "Justification, Faith, and Faithfulness: The Works of the Law." Much like Piper he seems to assert rather than carefully argue from the particular scriptures which NTW addresses, particular old perspectives on the issues. I realize I'm just positing my own opinions here, but hope it is helpful. In Christ, Richard W. Wilson Trevin,
I appreciate your collecting these links as they consolidate in one place the continuity of the Mike Horton review/critique of N T Wright’s _Justification and God’s Righteousness: Imputation and the Future Hope_. I think that Horton hasn’t understood the differentiation NTW makes, based as he sees it from scripture, between salvation and justification; Horton’s argument seems to conflate the two.
Although Horton affirms some aspects of Wright’s critique of Piper: “[he] correctly rejects Piper’s definition of “righteousness” as “God’s concern for God’s own glory,” he seems to argue against other parts without identifying what specific parts that might be. His argument doesn’t tell us where NTW disagrees with his own view when he says things like: “However, none of this future hope is conceivable apart from the repeated emphasis of Paul on the present justification of the ungodly by imputed Christ’s righteousness to all who trust in Christ.” How does this trump NTW’s own view in relation to scripture?
In later argument he seems to just assume the traditional “old perspective” without relationship to scripture when he comments saying “Remarkably, Wright accuses the old perspective (or at least Piper) of down-playing the law-court metaphor (68). This is highly ironic, given the fact that the grounding of justification in the law-court (imputation rather than infusion) has been the heart of the debate between Reformation and Roman Catholic interpretations.” “Law court context” doesn’t automatically imply traditional understandings of “imputation.” This is a _non sequitur_.
Surely, “Wright must be aware of the reformers’ reluctant but firm criticism of Augustine and the medieval view at just this point (confusing justification and sanctification),” and he does, but the eschatological referent in Paul’s thought according to NTW connects them in a way the reformers didn’t recognize. Likewise, it seems, Horton doesn’t recognize the difference between salvation as imputation of Christ’s righteosness to the believer and salvation of those who are “in Christ.”
Ultimately, it appears that the crucial issue relates to concerns regarding The danger, ,,, in making faith the condition of present justification and works the condition of an eschatological justification in the future.” However, for me, and I think for NTW, the danger is rather in ignoring how Paul and other NT writers and the teaching of Jesus present the criteria of works in relation to judgment. If Jesus and the Apostles present eschatological judgment as dependent on evidence of the avoidance of unfaithfulness in works why would we resist the conclusion NTW asserts in concert with them?
Maybe it is just me, or perhaps it is being so late in the night-morning, but Horton seems to lack substantive cogency as his review proceeds into “Justification, Faith, and Faithfulness: The Works of the Law.” Much like Piper he seems to assert rather than carefully argue from the particular scriptures which NTW addresses, particular old perspectives on the issues.
I realize I’m just positing my own opinions here, but hope it is helpful.
In Christ, Richard W. Wilson

]]> By: Trevin Wax http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/trevinwax/2009/10/28/michael-hortons-review-of-n-t-wrights-justification/#comment-5410 Trevin Wax Thu, 29 Oct 2009 13:48:02 +0000 http://trevinwax.com/?p=4483#comment-5410 Chip, My view would probably line up closest with Michael Bird - who is somewhere in between Wright and Piper. Some of the insights of the New Perspective can be incorporated into a traditionally Reformed framework without doing injustice to either. I also maintain the traditional understanding of imputation as making the best sense of the text. When I say that Horton's review is even-handed, I am referring to his tone and the way in which he makes his case. He actually does business with what Wright says (not what popular myths think he says), and he makes his case charitably and fairly, showing where he thinks Wright is correct and where Wright is wrong. I don't agree fully with everything in Horton's review, but it is one of the best I've come across. Chip,

My view would probably line up closest with Michael Bird – who is somewhere in between Wright and Piper. Some of the insights of the New Perspective can be incorporated into a traditionally Reformed framework without doing injustice to either. I also maintain the traditional understanding of imputation as making the best sense of the text.

When I say that Horton’s review is even-handed, I am referring to his tone and the way in which he makes his case. He actually does business with what Wright says (not what popular myths think he says), and he makes his case charitably and fairly, showing where he thinks Wright is correct and where Wright is wrong. I don’t agree fully with everything in Horton’s review, but it is one of the best I’ve come across.

]]> By: Chip Crush http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/trevinwax/2009/10/28/michael-hortons-review-of-n-t-wrights-justification/#comment-5409 Chip Crush Thu, 29 Oct 2009 13:43:07 +0000 http://trevinwax.com/?p=4483#comment-5409 Hey Trevin, Hope all is well. I have followed Wright and Piper from a distance on this topic, and your blog has been helpful in doing that. I must admit to siding with Piper (and the typical Reformed view), though it seems you maybe side with Wright. Certainly, it is clear that you appreciate him and his efforts to re-evaluate the important topic of justification, and I can see the importance of that. Nevertheless, I just read the conclusion of Horton's review, in agreement, and if your time allows, I'd like to see you elaborate on your comment that it was "evenhanded." Thanks for your Kingdom work! Hey Trevin,

Hope all is well. I have followed Wright and Piper from a distance on this topic, and your blog has been helpful in doing that. I must admit to siding with Piper (and the typical Reformed view), though it seems you maybe side with Wright. Certainly, it is clear that you appreciate him and his efforts to re-evaluate the important topic of justification, and I can see the importance of that. Nevertheless, I just read the conclusion of Horton’s review, in agreement, and if your time allows, I’d like to see you elaborate on your comment that it was “evenhanded.” Thanks for your Kingdom work!

]]>