Barb writes about the most recent accusation towards Bishop Wright. This one comes from John Fesko and Richard Gaffin. Fesko has taught at RTS/Orlando some months ago and is a fairly kind professor, or so I am told. Nevertheless, he is no friend of N.T. Wright, as his numerous con-Wright articles prove. On the other hand, I have had a chance to interact with Gaffin on a personal level and through lectures and writings. He is a gracious scholar and as far as I know has not yet accused anyone of heresy and some are so quick to do. I believe there are other concerns these men have beyond the justification issue, such as ordination of women and certain hesitancy from Wright to affirm the historical narrative of Genesis. a I, too, share these concerns, but it seems obvious that they are focusing too much of their time on one particular issue (namely, NPP) and now even accusing Wright of denying Trinitarian formulations. In my estimation, it would be wiser if they would focus on issues that Presbyterians in general disagree on, as opposed to nuances of justification and Trinitarianism, b which the Bishop has affirmed over and over that he does not deny (see e-mail link). According to Barb, “Gaffin upped the ante by telling readers that he has doubts about Wright’s Christology, especially his perception that Wright believes Jesus had no self-awareness of his deity, that his messianic consciousness was no higher than that of an eschatological prophet.” Does this have any validity?
A curious student e-mailed the Bishop and here is his reply.
- If anyone can provide where N.T. Wright expresses these doubts, please let me know of a link or book (back)
- I am in no way referring to modalism as a nuance; if it is proven that any scholar holds to modalism, let him be anathema (back)
Hey man, on your question in footnote 1, check out chapter 2 in Wright’s _Climax of the Covenant_ in which he seeks to lay the foundation for his controlling redemptive-historical hermeneutic. While he does not deal with historicity explicitly, he seems to implicitly take the historicity as an a priori. However, if this implicit connection is true, then it is intriguing that he dodges the hermeneutical bullet of federal headship in the same chapter.
I can’t speak to Barb’s or Gaffin’s ideas, but I would wonder if it would be helpful to keep in mind that one’s view of Adam’s identity and mission cannot help but affect one’s view of the Second Adam’s identity and mission. In this regard, it may be interesting to compare Wright’s take on Genesis 1-3 in Climax (esp. chapter 2, in which Wright takes the Lutheran position on humanity’s prelapsarian state) to historic Reformed biblical theology (for example, Vos’ essay on the history of Covenant Theology in his collection of Shorter Writings).
faith seeking understanding, LO
Thanks LO. I will look into Climax of the Covenant this summer…
I finally was able to change the header for the blog, but I need to get together with you and deal with a few minor issues like background color and so on…Shalom.