The Sixth Circle?

At the repository of sophistry known as Reformed Catholicism Kevin Johnson saw fit to edit out one of my posts there on the grounds that it was "inappropriate and disrespectful". I like to think of our blog as appropriately disrespectful, dispensing noogies, wedgies, wet willies, and occasionally even swirlies to all forms of doctrinal unsoundness. So I have posted the uncensored version here with light editing. Parental guidance suggested for children under 13.

This was written in response to Jamey Bennett's post.

----------------------------

Jamey,

I first read Wright’s What Saint Paul Really Said in the summer of 2001 and remember thinking to myself “there is a lot of good stuff in here, but gosh, some of this sounds a lot like Norm Shepherd and Daniel Fuller.” This is before the Auburn Avenue flap. You can probably buy the book for $10 or so. It really should concern you more than it seems to.

But saying "discipleship is salvation" is not the same as saying "discipleship is justification". I assume McArthur is using "salvation" here in reference to sanctification.

But the most charitable reading of Wright’s quote that God will declare us just "on the last day on the basis of an entire life" leads me to conclude that he is, at best, equivocating - "declare us just" is really in reference to our public vindication, not justification (our right standing before God). I chalk this sort of confusion up to the prevalent illiteracy in systematic theology. Anyone who has read standard works such as Berkhof knows better than to muddle such basic concepts. Or, heck, Reymond or Grudem or Hodge’s systematics tomes will do fine, too.

Another example of this systematics confusion is assuming that the statement “salvation is God’s work from start to finish” exonerates Wright from a Reformational standpoint. That statement is an affirmation of sola gratia (which even Romanists often affirm), but not an affirmation of sola fide.

Is Wright going to hell? Maybe. Maybe not. For St. Paul, it was a certainty that the Judaizer leaders were (thus his anathema) - but for the Galatian audience he only held it out as a live possibility, thus giving them a stern warning in hopes that they would accept correction. This is under the assumption that their faith of the heart was better than their momentary doctrine and practice. Hopefully Wright falls into the latter. I suspect he does, but does not a similar stern warning have propriety, as God disciples his sons?

I echo Phil Johnson's sentiments and appreciate the spirit and tone of your post. As I reflect on the matter further, I realize that most Anglicans - even academics - have probably never been exposed to standard works of systematics by us American presbyterians and Dutch-rooted Calvinists. Turretin is maybe the closest thing an Anglican might be exposed to. I could be all wrong here, since I don’t exactly have my hand on the pulse of the Anglican world.

One can affirm that “discipleship is salvation [i.e. sanctification]” yet deny that eternal life “hinges on faith lived out faithfully.” Justification judicially secures BOTH eternal life and the living out of our faith. So the living out of our faith (good works) is a descriptive condition of eternal life, not prescriptive. Thus, good works are not instrumental causes of justification or eternal life. I know that this metaphysics is rather tight, but wander off and you could step on a theological land mine.


----------------------------

Now Jamey's post was respectable, and if the ratio of posts from Jamey, Joseph Johnson, and Rev. Pahls to posts by Kevin Johnson and Tim Enloe continues to climb past a ratio of 1.00, then that web site might become a respectable little outfit conducive to edifying dialogue. I might even be forced to revoke my award I gave them for Most Pretentious Sophistry on the Internet.

Kevin took exception to my use of the "h" word. Hey, I am not the one who brought up the topic of hell in relationship to bad theology, Jamey did. On a serious note, I have a hard time seeing the reproducing of the biblical warnings to the Galatians as "disrespectful" to any ordained minister. The Judaizers received anathemas from Paul, but the Galatian church (including the ordained officers there) received a warning. I see no scriptural principle that bars church laity from making similar warnings to church officers or (in this case) about church officers.

As I have made clear, I'm calling no one a heretic nor anathematizing Bishop Wright. If I have learned little else from John Frame's writings, it is that one should always read an author's writings with the most charitable interpretation that logic and language can allow. Therefore, I believe his theological views are muddled, and while I honestly believe the faith of his heart is better than the teaching he articulates, I still see great propriety in warning brethren about his teaching.

Plenty of people who will be in heaven have muddled theology. The problem with muddled theology is, rather, a pastoral problem. You never know what sort of faith is really lurking inside all the smoke and haze of such a theology.

Category: Theoblogia