Skip to main content

Wheaton Theology Conference - Kevin Vanhoozer

Wow what a morning it was. Vanhoozer's talk was nothing short of spectacular. Both his wit and his learning are hard to overstate. Vanhoozer's goal was to try to show how we might reach a rapprochement between the Old and New Perspectives on Paul. I'll sketch pieces of his argument.

One issue Vanhoozer notes right of the bat is that many Protestants are opposed to doctrinal development, which is strangely un-Protestant. This clearly needs to be addressed. Then he asks the question, 'does being biblical mean attending to the details or the big picture?' His answer was 'Yes.' Wright excels at showing the narrative elements of Pauline theology, connecting textual and canonical dots without having to resort to allegory. Here's where Vanhoozer has a concern. Is Wright guilty of illegitimate totality transfer in his imposition of 2nd temple Jewish categories on Paul. Vanhoozer agrees that context is key, especially canonical context. This laid the groundwork for him to later challenge Wright to include the pastorals into his understanding of Paul (e.g., 1 Tim. 1:15).

Vanhoozer correctly notes that Wright's reformed critics aren't challenging his affirmations, but his denials. Especially troubling is (related to the last paragraph) the bit that 'the gospel isn't about how one gets saved.' Vanhoozer notes that Paul doesn't think the question of individual salvation is one to be sidelined when asked (see Acts 16).

Vanhoozer points out that for Wright ecclesiology is the new soteriology. Justification is the verdict that you are in God's people and faith is a sign of covenant membership not an entry ticket. Of course this conflicts with many in the Reformed tradition. So, Vanhoozer suggests a way forward that can bring the concerns of both together - union with Christ.

Vanhoozer analyzes justification as everyone would expect him to - as a speech act. Here his analysis is helpful (and what follows is an extreme simplification). He notes that locuted righteousness actually brings about a state of affairs by the utterance, it's more than just a declaration of fact.

In the rest of his talk he went on to link imputation and justification in ways that are extremely helpful, subsuming the discussion into union with Christ and ultimately adoption. What's imputed to us is Christ's covenant faithfulness. He also suggests that what happens at justification isn't just an acquittal (criminal court) and isn't just a determination of covenental staus (civil court), it's membership into Christ and thus into God's family (adoption court).

Vanhoozer closed by calling for more dialogue between Wright and the old Reformed guard. Neither side gets it right completely. They need each other. That dialogue must be laced with grace and the fruit of the spirit. I think that Vanhoozer has given us excellent suggestions at what our way forward should be.


Popular posts from this blog

Commentary Series Overview

When I write commentary reviews, one of my main goals is to assess how well the commentator hit the intended audience of the commentary and utilized the format of the commentary. This often necessitates cluttering up the post discussing issues of format. To eliminate that, I thought that I would make some general remarks about the format and audience of each of the series that appear in my reviews. Terms like liberal, conservative, etc. are not used pejoratively but simply as descriptors. Many of you are familiar with Jeremy Pierce's commentary series overview. If you don't see a particular series covered here, check out his post to see if it's reviewed there. I am making no attempt at covering every series, just the series that I use. Additionally, new series (such as the NCCS) have been started in the five years since he wrote his very helpful guide, so I thought that it might not be completely out of order to have another person tackle commentary series overviews. This…

Paul's Argument in Galatians 3:15-29

15 Brothers and sisters, let me take an example from everyday life. Just as no one can set aside or add to a human covenant that has been duly established, so it is in this case. 16 The promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. Scripture does not say “and to seeds,” meaning many people, but “and to your seed,” meaning one person, who is Christ. 17 What I mean is this: The law, introduced 430 years later, does not set aside the covenant previously established by God and thus do away with the promise. 18 For if the inheritance depends on the law, then it no longer depends on the promise; but God in his grace gave it to Abraham through a promise. 19 Why, then, was the law given at all? It was added because of transgressions until the Seed to whom the promise referred had come. The law was given through angels and entrusted to a mediator. 20 A mediator, however, implies more than one party; but God is one. 21 Is the law, therefore, opposed to the promises of God? Absolutely not! Fo…

Doctor Who: Rose Tyler - Traitor?

The end of season four was very, very controversial. When I first saw it, I felt cheated. I was angry. The more I think about it, the more I think I see what Russell Davies was doing. He is too good of a writer and the show is too carefully crafted for him to screw up Rose's character and the end of a four season storyline. So while the ending isn't strictly part of our series, it is tangentially related, and I've agonized over that scene in Bad Wolf Bay so much that I have to write about it. :)

To briefly set things up, near the end of the final episode of season four, there is a meta-crisis, that results in a part human. part Time Lord Doctor being generated. He has all of the Doctor's memories, and thinks and acts like the Doctor. However, importantly, he only has one heart and cannot regenerate. He only has one life to live. The meta-crisis Doctor brought full resolution to the battle fought against the Daleks, and in the process, wiped them out. Thus, the real Doc…