Doug Green, OT prof at Westminster Seminary, lists areas of agreement he finds with N.T. Wright’s view of Paul. He also lists some areas where Wright could improve his ideas.
Dr. Green’s comments are a helpful balance in the storm of controversy surrounding the New Perspective. We tend to hear either great words of praise for Wright or vicious words of condemnation. Green, on the other hand, seeks to emphasize areas of agreement and to make it clear that Wright is not a gospel-denying heretic.
I am confident that Wright has not denied the gospel, as some appear to be claiming. Furthermore, as one who locates himself in the redemptive-historical tradition of Reformed theology, I am of the opinion that Wright’s work marks a significant advance in theological reflection on Paul. At the very least, I believe that a judicious appreciation and appropriation of much of Wright’s theology is consistent with a commitment to the Westminster Standards, when interpreted from a redemptive-historical and union-with-Christ perspective. Putting it more optimistically, I believe that Wright’s work ha the potential to contribute considerably to the enrichment and development of the redemptive-historical strand of Confessional Reformed theology.
Click here to read the entire article (PDF).
{ 2 comments… read them below or add one }
I’m especially encouraged that many are actually coming to the realization that NT Wright is not to be view as a foe but a friend.
At any rate, it seems like the professor is holding up the Reformed confession as the standard? Am I off on this observation?
T.C., Remember Dr. Green’s audience. I’m not sure what your background is, but in Reformed confessional churches, the Westminster Confession is used, not as the ultimate standard (like Scripture), but as a faithful explanation of biblical doctrine. So, it’s not as if Dr. Green is saying that he tests everything Wright says against the Confession instead of Scripture. Rather, he is speaking to believers who come from a Reformed confessional tradition and saying essentially, “Look, if you believe that the Confession is an accurate description of biblical doctrine, Wright is still not a threat to that belief.”
I know sometimes in Reformed traditions, people can be caricatured as holding the Confession above Scripture (and sometimes in practice that happens!), but by and large, those of us in that tradition are still absolutely committed to the final authority of Scripture, not the Confession. That’s why even in PCA ordinations, for example, men may take exceptions to parts of the Confession where they disagree.
Does that help?