To be clear: I believe what I’ve written. And I see no contradiction between that and much of the New Perspective.

While I don’t agree with all that Wright teaches, I think his views on soteriology actually strengthen what Todd and I am saying, although I’ve not seen where he deals with apostasy per se. He seems at places to teach perseverance of the saints, and if that’s so, I disagree with that conclusion.

however, if you are presenting a position on soteriology that may not actually be your own position, don’t be surprised if we all get confused later when you “change” your position!

i feel this is just a methodology/clarity issue. it wouldn’t hurt to give us a little footnote, something to the effect of, “i am speaking of the prevailing Protestant position on soteriology, though i may favor a more nuanced approach that includes elements of the so-called New Perspective.” that is, if you believe that!

regards

I’m very conversant with Wright’s teachings — and I agree with much (not all) of them. I’ve just finished Justification, and his view of the Spirit is very close to mine.

However, you have to teach within the framework of your readers, meaning beginning within the framework of conservative CoC theology. When the conservatives are seriously arguing that faith is a work, you really can’t jump straight into the new perspective.

The goal here isn’t to present a complete soteriology so much as to show the incoherence of conservative thought and introduce a better approach.

I’ve posted extensively on Wright at OneInJesus, however.

Sent from my iPhone

i’m a bit let down that you didn’t mention anything about the subjective genitive “pistis Christou” side of things….in other words, that Paul wasn’t really saying we are saved by faith/belief in Christ (per se) but by the faithfulness OF Christ. i know you can’t present every idea out there, solely for the sake of balance, but sometimes you come off as if your perspective is the ONLY perspective.

i feel the same about referring to salvation as a past event, “we were saved.” many folks (including Wright) would probably prefer an already/not yet approach to salvation.

sorry if this comes off as nitpicking….i do wonder if your sotierology is a bit “mainstream Reformation” or old-school Lutheran for my tastes. some of the best theology/research from the last few decades goes a long way towards solving this false faith/works dichotomy that has plagued the church since Luther’s (mis)reading became so popular.

It is a fatal mistake for the listeners when we teach repentance as a stand alone work of cleaning up one’s own life before coming Christ.

Great post!
Royce

Once you define “faith” as faith/faithfulness, then it only makes sense that you must first repent (change) so that you can then have faith/faithfulness.

This is one of the most lucid expositions of the relationship between faith, repentance and obedience I have ever seen. The example from Josephus makes it very clear.

Have you seen K. C. Moser’s discussion of “repentance and faith” (as contrasted with our usual “faith and repentance”)? If you have, I would be interested sometime in hearing your take on the significance, if any, of that different sequencing of believing and repenting. After all, Jesus did begin his ministry urging people to “repent and believe the gospel” and in Ephesus Paul preached “repentance toward God and faith in the Lord Jesus.” In fact, every time repentance and faith are mentioned in the same text, it is in that sequence. Why, then, do we insist on belief being before repentance?