1. What makes a doctrine important?Is a lack of experiential impact a sign that a doctrine is not important? What else makes a doctrine important? Below you can see how this question developed for me (a reminder to self that theology is not an abstract system of truth–although certainly truth–foremost, it is about who the living God is).
   • This question was raised by means of a post by Andrew at Theogeek, who was wondering if the doctrine of Penal Substitionary Atonement is significant if it does not make a difference in lived experience and if people hold to some functional equivalent.
   • I wrote a post expressing my un-ease with this, since it tends to negate the historical function of doctrines and since I also wonder whether functional equivalence “works.”
   • I don’t think I was listening very well, perhaps because I was bothered by the idea. Brad H responded in a comment that helped me understand what Andrew’s chief point may be: “what does a doctrine matter if there is no discernible experiential effect?”
   • My response, in a comment:
     1. But if doctrine, however abstract, is about something relational (God in relation to humans/humanity), even if we can’t discern the experiential effect on the human side, does it not convey important information about who God is? Hence, is a doctrine, which says something about who God is, not intrinsically important, regardless of its perceived effect on the human side?
     2. Is a notion of orthodoxy not enough to care for and guard some doctrines in any case? Shouldn’t we just care about the truth of the matter, regardless of personal impact?

   What do you think? What makes a doctrine important?

2. Is a gospel awakening happening? Drew Goodmanson writes in a post that the recent Gospel Coalition conference (I was able to attend most of it) may be a sign of gospel awakening because it represents three shifts in thinking about the gospel by the Evangelical Center (referring to the center is my way of stating what Goodmanson is saying). First, a shift toward acknowledging scripture as normative narrative. Second, the shift to thinking of the gospel as bigger than a ticket to heaven. Third, the shift that the gospel requires a missional posture toward the world. I had appreciated those aspects of the gospel coalition conference without really thinking about them. Goodmanson’s post help me see their significance. I should add a caveat that a church seeking to be scripturally faithful 50 years ago was probably emphasizing these things in its own ways. But the way they are being said now is important and encouraging. Here are links to the Gospel Coalition foundational documents and audio and video.HT for Gospel Coalition documents: Steve McCoy
3. The papacy as a guarantee striving to be stronger than the cross An Orthodox priest, Father Stephen, writes about Pope Benedict XVI’s re-assertion of submission to papal primacy as a mark of the true church:
   

   Universal Primacy has a way of offering a guarantee that transcends the cross. No matter how badly we fail, the de jure Primacy of the Pope in every local Church, guarantees that no one can really mess it up. I think that is neat, and the product of human imagination. I believe that God has established His Church such that, just like Christ, when pierced with nails it will bleed. Only love binds the Church together, nothing more.

   HT: JS Bangs, Boar’s Head Tavern

I’ve touched up my posts on the effect that NT Wrights’ views of law and righteousness have on his understanding of the significance of justification.  The first post is here.

Overview of this series

1. First post, background issues
2. Example passages
3. Reductionism in Wright
4. Conclusion (This post)

Conclusion

I’ve read a quote relevant to the NPP, but I don’t know what the source is at the moment. The substance of the quote is: “the NPP is right in what it affirms and wrong in what it denies.” Perhaps another way of saying this with respect to Wright is “what lies within his approach to law is useful, what he has fenced out of his approach is critical.” (more…)

Overview of this series

1. First post, background issues
2. Example passages
3. Reductionism in Wright (This post)
4. Conclusion

Reductionism in Wright

But, (did you sense the “but” coming?)—Wright has been extraordinarily reductionist even as he has recovered this emphasis. Wright does a fascinating job of helping us understand the significance of, say, circumcision as a work of the law. But his approach to the totality of law is baffling. Yes, one can see how a part of the law consists of covenant markers, but law necessarily must also contain God’s moral standard for Israel. Further, one can see how God’s righteousness might be revealed in his covenant faithfulness, but God’s righteousness is surely “wider” than his faithfulness to the covenant. Consider the following passage from Deuteronomy: (more…)

Overview of this series

1. First post, background issues
2. Example passages (This post)
3. Reductionism in Wright
4. Conclusion

 
Example passages

At this point, it might be helpful to see some of Wright’s interpretation at work.

Passage 1:

Romans 3:20-22a: For by works of the law no human being will be justified in his sight, since through the law comes knowledge of sin. But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it–the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe.

This becomes, roughly:

By covenant markers such as circumcision, no one will be justified in his sight. Through faith in God’s covenant faithfulness demonstrated in Christ, the faithful can become members of the covenant and reckoned righteous by God as a result of being covenant members, but independent of covenant markers such as circumcision. The true covenant marker is faith in the covenant faithfulness of God

(more…)

I finished my paper on NT Wright and justification. Here is a stripped down and simplified summary of my main take on what leads Wright’s view of justification to be different from a classical Reformational view, in four posts.

Overview

1. First post, background issues (This post)
2. Example passages
3. Reductionism in Wright
4. Conclusion

First post, background issues

In order to “get” Wright on justification, one has to understand his hermeneutical approach to the New Testament, which is foundational to how he reads Paul. Wright is pursuing a rigorously Jewish reading of Paul–specifically, a Second Temple Judaism (”STJ”) reading. Wright thinks that one must grasp the STJ worldview through its own narrative self-understanding. Looking at Paul as the writer of abstract theological truths won’t do. One must understand how Paul, a Jew who came to view Jesus as the Messiah, would have understood Jesus within the narrative expectations of STJ. One of the aspects of STJ’s self-understanding was the narrative of God’s covenant. STJ was looking for God to fulfill his promises in the covenant—what Paul has to say about Jesus must be understood as an answer to the covenantal narrative questions and expectations of STJ, even if it was a startling, unexpected answer. (more…)

The first take on the Gospel Coalition website went live today. I was able to attend much of the conference (in May) and greatly appreciated it. Right now they have video and audio up from some of the plenary sessions (Tim Keller, DA Carson, John Piper). Also the founding documents, which deserve a close read. (You can tell that much thought went in to these).