The next Tabletalk article was written by a friend, RC Jr. I begin this way in the interests of full disclosure, and also because it is important to note that I happen to know he did not contribute this article in the interests of scoring anybody off, or for the sake of picking a fight. …
A Lot of Theological Pother
The next article in Tabletalk, by Paul Helm, was quite good. He was responding to Wright’s following statement: “People like Saul were not primarily interested in the state of their souls after death; that was no doubt important, but no doubt God would have the matter in hand. They were interested, urgently, in the salvation …
A Question that Only a Theologian Could Love
I don’t have a lot to say about Roger Nicole’s contribution to Tabletalk. The bulk of his article was a solid, standard Reformed treatment of some of the standard questions that can be raised concerned the imputation of righteousness — does this wipe out personal responsibility? does this make sinning a matter of indifference? and …
Turretin on One of His Grumpy Days
In one of his central misunderstandings, N.T. Wright says that “it makes no sense whatever to say that the judge imputes, imparts, bequeaths, conveys, or otherwise transfers his righteousness to either the plantiff or the defendant. Righteousness is not an object, a substance or a gas that can be passed across the courtroom.” In the …
Why Real Faith Believes
D.A. Carson is next up, and he takes on N.T. Wright’s views on “faith” and “faithfulness.” He begins by acknowledging that the Greek word pistis can legitimately be translated either way. As Carson notes, this is universally acknowledged, but I want to ask a question that can be derived from that simple fact. If the …
Inescapable Imputation
The next article in Tabletalk, by Thomas Schreiner, is the best one thus far. Schreiner advances his argument carefully, and does so without yelling “Great is the Diana of Geneva.” Moreover, the argument he advances exposes the glaring problem with Wright’s treatment of imputation. That problem is that Wright treats it as a problem between …
Eck Rises to Defend the Reformation
In the next Tabletalk article, Derek Thomas asks whether N.T. Wright is a new Luther, whether or not he comes in the spirit and power of Luther. He begins by noting that the accusation that systematic theology distorts exegesis is not a new accusation, and he quotes a sample from Wright’s book on justification. And, …
Bread or Toast?
Guy Waters is next up in Tabletalk, and he asks whether the church has misunderstood justification. He says, “Justification in the present, N.T. Wright claims, is primarily about how you can tell who belongs to the church. It is not primarily about the salvation of the sinner. Wright, of course, is not saying that justification …
Follow the Footnotes
Michael Horton makes some solid points in his article “Justification and Ecumenism.” He takes some fair shots at some of Wright’s positions, and generally hits the target. Unfortunately, the whole thing is undermined by his inconsistency–about which more anon. Horton makes one significant point twice. “Wright distorts the Reformation positions and almost never footnotes his …
Go Boil Your Antinomian Head
Allow me, if I might, to follow up on an important point that has arisen in the discussion following my post on Sinclair Ferguson. There are macro issues involved, so bear with me for a moment. Prior to Nicea, there were good men who were Trinitarian in substance, but who did not use the orthodox …