At a minimum – – be aware that there is a major discussion taking place today in the church about the doctrine of justification. The parties include those who defend a traditional reformed understanding of the doctrine of salvation and others who espouse what is often called the New Perspective on Paul.
One of the decisions I have made with my blog over time is to target the people in my church. I avoid getting into doctrinal discussions that are unnecessarily esoteric or difficult to follow. Of course, I am not a pastor who believes we should preach “down” to our people. And, I do believe that people in our churches need to be aware of significant doctrinal developments.
So, for those willing to stretch their thinking, go over to Mike Wittmer’s blog and read his post on N.T. Wright’s latest book (Click here).
Again, be aware that there is a major discussion underway in the Evangelical church about the doctrine of justification. Since the Reformation, the Protestant definition of “justification” has been a legal declaration by God that those who believe are righteous. But, N.T. Wright and others are calling into question the Reformer’s understanding of the doctrine of justification. Which leads Wittmer to ask, “If someone adopts a different doctrinal understanding . . . should they still consider themselves Protestant?”
This is arguably the most important doctrinal discussion taking place right now in the English speaking world. (Agreed?)
I would acknowledge that I have not studied this enough to write with real clarity about it. I welcome comments from those who will help others understand more clearly the nature of the debate.
Chris, I probably shouldn’t say too much on the subject since I haven’t read the book, but if Mike Wittmer describes N.T. Wright’s position accurately, then I don’t really have a problem with it at all. It would seem that Wright does a better job than most protestants at explaining the blurry lines concerning the use of the word “justification” in the NT. There is no question that we are declared righteous in God’s site because of his grace (Rom. 3:24). However, it is also clear that we are created in Christ to do good works (Eph. 2:10) and in some sense or another are justified by works that we do and not faith alone (James 2:24). I think the key is in passages like Eph 2:10 where it is clear that the works are the result of Christ’s work of salvation which is already in place. If Wright’s position were to slip into those works being done on our own merit, then I’d have a problem with that. Otherwise, from a 2nd hand glance, it looks good to me. I also don’t really see how that disagrees with Protestantism…seems to be mostly semantics…justification vs. sanctification, etc.
Ok, clearly I’ve already said more than I should say having not read the book. 🙂
Matt–thanks you were careful. The passage in James has always been a difficult one. We know Luther’s proposed solution regarding James: burn it. I definitely agree with your point about Ephesians 2.
It is semantics. But, then semantics are important.
Great to hear from you!
It is interesting that a person who seems to have a real handle on some subject(s) (ie. resurrection) can be hazy on others (ie. justification). I lean towards the Piper camp. Good post as always!