Darin,
And I would still like to see how his views of Justification fit the so-called "categories" of unconditional election and limited atonement. It's an important question whether all can enter into the covenant (even if we're not talking about heaven) and on what basis. It deserves an answer even if not directly addressed head-on by the apostles. They didn't address the Trinity head-on either, and he has no problem taking a stand on that point.
I'm gonna try really hard to say this right,
NTW doesn't believe in Unconditional Election as defined by 5-pointers, nor in Limited Atonement. The Jew Paul didn't believe in these Gentile influenced philosophical doctrines either. They were invented by Augustine 400 years after Paul died.
Wright would probably say that Election is simply God's sovereign choice to have a people and would not associate to human response, as both Arminians and standard 5-point Calvinists do. (I think NTW said as much in the lengthy quote I gave above). I could be wrong but doubt NTW links Election to anything past God's electing---doesn't add, "But do the elect have free will or don't they?". NTW may see election as unconditional in the sense that it is an independent act of Sovereignty; a wholly-divine thing. Paul and NTW are silent on if the elect and non-elect have free will or don't: these are Gentile, Augustinian, Calvinistic, and (even) Arminian concepts and questions. The Jews didn't think foolish things such as these.
Don't get me wrong -- I find his approach and style and humor wonderfully fresh and edifying -- he's got a rare brilliance that has no doubt considered these questions -- I just think he ought to (and may have) provide his views on these issues which are very relevant to the church today since they are so inextricably linked to his novel and prolific views of justification.
For me, NTW's ideas seemed and were foreign when I first heard them. Now I feel they are not only more familiar but that I've gotten into the mind of Paul himself. And thats very important for authorial intention hermeneutics.
Yes, his view of justification did seem "novel" at first. I had been taught to think like some theologians who lived about 400 years ago. They thought they had Paul all figured out. Paul wrote, "be transformed by the renewing of your mind." What was novel became new and, now, is more and more a part of my present day worldview. "Thinking biblically" from what the Bible authors actually thought! Not just the words of the verses lined up in a systematic style (see Calvinism). The
thoughts behind the words.
He really does sound like a Calvinist in his soteriology when he skirts the issues of the "calling" which might explain Piper's and others' support of him but for this recent view of O.T. grace for the Jews.
Steve Gregg says, "The Calvinists define the categories of debate." It's like a trap they set, whether they do it knowingly or not. If Paul was outside of the Calvinist system, why wouldn't NTW, myself, or anyone else be? Piper and other NTW critics think inside their own box. Paul and NTW aren't in it.
Wright doesn't skirt issues in terms of what he says, independent of the systems. That is, he affirms what he affirms regardless of whether it fits a prefabbed category. It's really a cross-cultural thing, with Reformed thought thinking philosophically (Gentile) and NTW and Paul thinking relationally: Jewish theology always has relevance-in-relationship with, to, and from God. The Word of God was certainly theological to the Jews. But it wasn't sets of propositions to support doctrines and/or theological systems. The Bible doesn't
have systematic theology.
One point on being a Calvinist.
Wright says he is a Calvinist/Reformed, but differs with Calvin on the significant points that the 5-pointers debate him about. Karl Barth had strong areas of agreement and disagreement with Calvin also.
Protestants are Calvinists and/or Reformed to some extent. Even Arminius considered himself a lifelong student of Calvin's theology. Luther knew his theology also, though there were distinctives between the two. We tend to forget that Calvin had a lot of great theology! (as long as he keeps off the 5 points). The Augustinian influence rather spoiled his it, unfortunately.
Steve has no doubt been influenced by Wright and definitely has ears for this particular point -- I would love to hear how he sees this point.
Steve's said he's read NTW. The two agree on Romans 9-11 and Romans 2 (that the "Gentiles who do not have the law, are a law unto themselves" are Gentile-Christians). I accept this too. Steve and NTW don't agree on Romans 7.
I'm not sure to what extent Steve goes with NTW on justification. I'm re-listening to some of Steve's Romans lectures now and will keep an ear open. Thanks for reading & take care. I'm enjoying this,
