I started reading N.T. Wright at Westminster Theological Seminary (Philadelphia) and along the way through my hiatus as an Anglican priest. I believe that he provided the necessary paradigm shift for me to appreciate the nuances of the Council of Trent regarding justification.
N.T. Wright is a good enough biblical theologian to realize that Paul didn’t teach personal salvation by way of an imputation of an alien righteousness. That’s why the Anglican bishop has received so much attention – he’s a Protestant writing like a Catholic.
Some earnest Protestants are now scratching their heads and saying to themselves: “You know, everything we’ve always assumed that Paul taught isn’t actually articulated by Paul. Maybe it’s time to rethink the entire systematic theology that we (Protestants) erected in the 16th-17th century.”
If you buy into Wright’s covenantal realism, then you’ve already taken three steps toward the Catholic Church. Keep following the trail an you’ll be Catholic. Salvation is sacramental, transformational, communal, and eschatological. Sound good? You’ve just assented to the Catholic Council of Trent.
It’s almost as if Wright dug deeply into Paul’s writings until finally he came to a door. When he opened the door, to everyone’s surprise, he found that he was on the other side of Wittenburg’s door.
If you’re ready to see what the Catholic Church truly believes about justification (and not what Michael Horton and R.C. Sproul say that we believe), click here to here for the Sixth Session of Council of Trent on Justification.
![[Post to Twitter]](http://pauliscatholic.com/wp-content/plugins/tweet-this/icons/tt-twitter-micro4.png "Does N.T. Wrights theology lead to Catholicism?"){kind=icon}
![[Post to Plurk]](http://pauliscatholic.com/wp-content/plugins/tweet-this/icons/tt-plurk.png "Does N.T. Wrights theology lead to Catholicism?"){kind=icon}
![[Post to Yahoo Buzz]](http://pauliscatholic.com/wp-content/plugins/tweet-this/icons/tt-buzz.png "Does N.T. Wrights theology lead to Catholicism?"){kind=icon}
![[Post to Delicious]](http://pauliscatholic.com/wp-content/plugins/tweet-this/icons/tt-delicious.png "Does N.T. Wrights theology lead to Catholicism?"){kind=icon}
![[Post to Digg]](http://pauliscatholic.com/wp-content/plugins/tweet-this/icons/tt-digg.png "Does N.T. Wrights theology lead to Catholicism?"){kind=icon}
![[Post to Ping.fm]](http://pauliscatholic.com/wp-content/plugins/tweet-this/icons/tt-ping.png "Does N.T. Wrights theology lead to Catholicism?"){kind=icon}
![[Post to Reddit]](http://pauliscatholic.com/wp-content/plugins/tweet-this/icons/tt-reddit.png "Does N.T. Wrights theology lead to Catholicism?"){kind=icon}
![[Post to StumbleUpon]](http://pauliscatholic.com/wp-content/plugins/tweet-this/icons/tt-su.png "Does N.T. Wrights theology lead to Catholicism?"){kind=icon}
Taylor was an Episcopal priest in Fort Worth, Texas before being received into the Catholic Church by Bishop Kevin Vann of Fort Worth.
Taylor was also formerly the Assistant Director of the Catholic Information Center in Washington, D.C., located three blocks north of the White House, where he lectured regularly. He was served under Archbishop John J. Myers and Msgr. William Stetson for the Pastoral Provision of John Paul II, the canonical structure by which Anglican clergy are received into the Catholic Church and then go on to pursue Holy Orders in the Catholic Church.
He is a graduate of Westminster Theological Seminary (M.A.R. Theology), Nashotah Theological House (Certificate in Anglican Studies), and University of Dallas (M.A. Philosophy). He is currently a Ph.D. student in Philosophy at the University of Dallas where he studies the Natural Law theory of Saint Thomas Aquinas (Summa Theologiae Ia Iaa qq. 94-108). Taylor and his wife live in Dallas, Texas with their five children. He is the author of The Catholic Perspective on Paul (forthcoming).
Visit his personal site at: www.taylormarshall.com
Taylor is also the Editor of Christian and American at: www.christianandamerican.com. 
Taylor,
Are there any particular writings by N.T. Wright you found especially helpful in your “pilgrimage”? “Climax of the Covenant” perhaps?
God bless!
Fr. Deacon Daniel
Climax of the Covenant is great. What Saint Paul really said is a great little introduction that leads to the right questions.
Jesus and the Victory of God is good but “over-eschatologizes” the Kingdom, which is an understandable tendency for Protestants since they don’t have a robust doctrine of the Church. If you combine this book with a healthy dose of preterism, you need a universal/catholic Church. This book led me to ask Catholic questions – which in turn led to Catholic answers.
Also, the method Wright uses in The Resurrection of the Son of God could be used to demonstrate that the historical Church is the dogmatic Church.
Once you start reading the New Testament with the new categories supplied by N.T. Wright, you begin looking for new answers. In my own experience, people who read Wright tend to become more liturgical and increasingly move to the margins of their denomination – OR – they begin to explore Catholicism and maybe eventually become Catholic. The latter is rare, but I expect that it will become more common.
Our new blog Called to Communion is a group of guys who became Catholic and were inspired by N.T. Wright along the way.
One element of N.T. Wright’s theology that I’m not sold on is what he explains about the new heavens and the new earth:
http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/FaithMatters/Story?id=4330823&page=1
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1710844,00.html
http://www.readthespirit.com/explore/2008/04/157-conversatio.html
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2008/april/13.36.html
Some of it makes sense to me, like this excerpt: “But the point of God’s split-level good creation, heaven and earth, is not that earth is a kind of training ground for heaven, but that heaven and earth are designed to overlap and interlock (which is, by the way, the foundation of all sacramental theology, with the sacraments as one of the places where this overlap actually happens), and that one day – as the book of Revelation makes very clear – one day they will do so fully and for ever, as the New Jerusalem comes down from heaven to earth.” (source) But I can’t fully reconcile what I think he’s teaching with St. Paul’s statement that our citizenship is in Heaven.
Great comment. Would you mind sharing what you think he’s saying?
Well, it sounds a little like the Jehovah’s Witnesses theory that there will be 144,000 in Heaven for eternity… and the rest of the saved will hang out on Earth for eternity. Except Wright seems to me to be saying that Heaven is just a “storeroom” or a “holding cell”, if you will, until the new heaven(s) and the new earth are manifested. (cf. Rev. 21-22)
Yes, Revelation describes the new Jerusalem coming down out of heaven, but I’ve “always” had some conception that the new heaven-and-earth and the new Jerusalem will be some super-universal reality. Not just a restored and renewed universe (perfected, sans sin and procreation!) but a super-universal existence, something literally out of this world, out of all worlds. I sort of expect it to be a fusing of the supernatural (spiritual) and the natural (physical), much like St. Paul describes our resurrected bodies, and similar to what Wright says (quoted in my previous post) that it will be an eternal “sacrament” (Heaven and earth overlapping), but without the sacramental veil.
I’m not Taylor, but speaking as another Anglican convert (received 25 April 2009) I can say that NT Wright played a pivotal role in my conversion, and here is an example from his discussion of what “Justification” means in Paul (and notice, particularly, where he ends up at the end of the quote – e.g. with Baptism):
What then is this vindication, this dikaiosis? It is God’s declaration that a person is in the right; that is, (a) that their sins have been forgiven, and (b) that they are part of the single covenant family promised to Abraham. Notice that opening phrase: God’s declaration that. Not ‘God’s bringing it about that’, but God’s authoritative declaration of what is in fact the case. This is the point, of course, where some have accused me of semi-Pelagianism. That might be so if I intended to denote, with the word ‘justification’, what the tradition has denoted. But I don’t. Paul, I believe, uses vindication/justification to denote God’s declaration about someone, about (more specifically) the person who has been ‘called’ in the sense described above. Vindication is not the same as call.
And we now discover that this declaration, this vindication, occurs twice. It occurs in the future, as we have seen, on the basis of the entire life a person has led in the power of the Spirit – that is, it occurs on the basis of ‘works’ in Paul’s redefined sense. And, near the heart of Paul’s theology, it occurs in the present as an anticipation of that future verdict, when someone, responding in believing obedience to the ‘call’ of the gospel, believes that Jesus is Lord and that God raised him from the dead. This is the point about justification by faith – to revert to the familiar terminology: it is the anticipation in the present of the verdict which will be reaffirmed in the future. Justification is not ‘how someone becomes a Christian’. It is God’s declaration about the person who has just become a Christian. And, just as the final declaration will consist, not of words so much as of an event, namely, the resurrection of the person concerned into a glorious body like that of the risen Jesus, so the present declaration consists, not so much of words, though words there may be, but of an event, the event in which one dies with the Messiah and rises to new life with him, anticipating that final resurrection. In other words, baptism [emphasis mine]. I was delighted yesterday to discover that not only Chrysostom and Augustine but also Luther would here have agreed with me.
New Perspectives on Paul – 10th Edinburgh Dogmatics Conference: 25–28 August 2003 Rutherford House, Edinburgh
The point, of course, is that when one really listens to what St. Paul is really saying about Justification, without the coloured glasses of Lutheran/Reformed eisegesis clouding the picture (to mix metaphors) one discovers that one ends up precisely where the Catholic Church has been all along!
Jeff Pinyan,
I hear you. I suppose that Wright’s emphasis can lead to a misunderstanding – that the intermediate state of the beatific vision is somehow not perfect.
However, I think that contemporary Christians usually err in the opposite direction so I’m not too bothered by it.
I do agree with you that it can be pushed into an extreme Jehovah’s Witness version of “soul sleep” but we both know that Wright avoids this.
Thanks for the awesome comments. I enjoyed reading them and thinking about them. You articulated something that I’ve never been able to articulate.
Jeff Holston,
Welcome home! To which Anglican jurisdiction did you belong?
Your words are great. I like how you said:
NT Wright certainly cured me of my Calvinistic distinctions regarding justification.
I’m not sold on NT Wright’s doctrine of justification/vindication. It’s not the full out Catholic version. However, when he shows that the Reformational doctrine is lacking (if not just wrong), one can simply revert to the default position (Catholicism) or move into a highly nuanced academic position (Wright’s version).
If you value tradition and the writings of the Fathers, the default Catholic position is the obvious choice.
Wright avoids the Augustinian/Tridentine language of “infusion”. If he took that last step, he’d be Catholic.
Thanks Taylor. I believe you’re right to suggest that NT Wright’s emphasis on covenantal nomism raises new questions about the merits of the Catholic position on justification. Having taken Wright at Harvard when he visited for a semester and having read his books through the years, I think there are four aspects of his Pauline theology that cause one to think of Catholic soteriology: a future aspect to justification, emphasis on the ecclesial implications of justification, defining the euanggelion in strictly objective terms (as he argues in What Saint Paul Really Said),and his emphasis on corporate solidarity vis a vis totus christus. I respectfully disagree with your point however that Wright teaches infusion. Yes, you are right that he conceives of imputation differently than the Reformers; but while he may not argue according to logitzomai, he reaches the same conclusion by means of en Christo–that is, to be in Christ is to possess the Lord’s perfect righteousness.
Thanks for your hard work on this site. I look forward to our paths crossing.
Warmly, Chris
Chris Castaldo,
Wow, what a great experience that must have been to sit under Wright at Harvard. I’m jealous!
You’re distillation of Wright’s “four points” is rather brilliant. In fact, if you’re willing, I’d be be HONORED for you to do a guest post on the subject (i.e. “The Four Aspects of Wright’s Pauline Theology”). Is that something that might interest you?
I’m a little confused on your point about “infusion”. I said that Wright does NOT teach it. Are you respectfully disagreeing with that and saying that Wright DOES teach infusion? If so, I’d be interested in why you think so. Maybe we’re misunderstanding one another.
Thanks for the GREAT comment and please come back. If you’re interested in writing a post – please let me know.
in Christ,
Taylor
Hi Taylor. Of course, it would be a privilege. Feel free to shoot me an email at holygroundbook@gmail.com to discuss it. Blessings brother. Chris
In Chapter Five of Trent it says,
“The Synod furthermore declares, that in adults, the beginning of the said Justification is to be derived from the prevenient [Page 33] grace of God, through Jesus Christ, that is to say, from His vocation, whereby, without any merits existing on their parts, they are called; that so they, who by sins were alienated from God, may be disposed through His quickening and assisting grace, to convert themselves to their own justification, by freely assenting to and co-operating with that said grace: in such sort that, while God touches the heart of man by the illumination of the Holy Ghost, neither is man himself utterly without doing anything while he receives that inspiration, forasmuch as he is also able to reject it; yet is he not able, by his own free will, without the grace of God, to move himself unto justice in His sight. Whence, when it is said in the sacred writings: Turn ye to me, and I will turn to you, we are admonished of our liberty; and when we answer; Convert us, O Lord, to thee, and we shall be converted, we confess that we are prevented by the grace of God.”
Am I right in assuming that this can be boiled down to “God does a bit and man does a bit”? If so, do you really believe this? Surely after all your studies, do you really believe that we are sufficient? If you do think this, then please give the Biblical evidence.
In addition, you misrepresent some Protestants, (many Protestants) who never think in terms of an “alien righteousness” being imputed.
Dear Nigel,
Note how the Fathers of the Council of Trent decreed that “Justification is to be derived from the prevenient grace of God, through Jesus Christ.” (from your quote above).
Prevenient grace is, as you may know, grace that goes beforehand and prepares a person for the fulness of grace received at justification.
Note also how Trent states: “yet is he not able, by his own free will, without the grace of God, to move himself unto justice in His sight”. Here we see that a sinner cannot by his freewill move himself, without the grace of God, toward justification.
I don’t see how this passage that you cited from Trent might teach that “God does a bit and man does a bit”. Would you mine explaining how this quote might lead one to make the conclusion that you made?
To answer your question: “As a Catholic submitted to the magisterium, I do NOT believe that “God does a bit and man does a bit” because this sentiment is rejected by the Council of Trent.”
Thank you for your reply.
You said “I don’t see how this passage that you cited from Trent might teach that “God does a bit and man does a bit”. Would you mine explaining how this quote might lead one to make the conclusion that you made?”
Why I ask this question is that chapter five includes the words “forasmuch as he is also able to reject it”. Surely the implication of the words is that if he can reject it (or by implication, accept it) then he has only been put in a “state of possibilities”.
Would that be consistent with the way the regenerative work of the Spirit is presented in the Bible,such that it is giving dead people life. This is more than the realm of possibility.
I am reading through the other articles and hope that you have the energy to reply to other questions that may arise.
Nigel,
The New Testament only refers to “regeneration” with regard to the individual twice: John 3:3-5 and Titus 3:5. In both cases it says nothing about conferring irresistible grace. Rather, both cases connect “water” to “washing”. This is why the early Church and Saint Augustine believed in “baptismal regeneration”.
You may enjoy listening to this podcast on Saint Paul on Baptism and Regeneration.
When I was a Reformed Protestant, I viewed salvation as a “zero-sum” situation. This led to the question, “How much does God do and how much do I do in salvation?”
Clearly it can’t be God does 50% and I do 50%. Then there was the Arminian position that came down to God does 99.9% and I do 0.1%. The Calvinist position rejects all this and states God does 100% and I do 0% – entirely monergistic.
The Catholic position (which I argue is the Pauline position on this site and in the book) is that the “zero-sum” paradigm is misleading. If you start with a scale ranging from zero to one hundred percent, you never get to the truth.
The early Christological debates centered on this zero sum error: “Is Christ 50% divine and 50% human? – what about 100% divine and 0% human?” The Councils authoritatively declared that this is the wrong way of seeing things. Christ is 100% divine AND 100% human. The divine Logos *assumed* his human nature. There is no contradiction is saying that Christ is 100% God and 100% man because the model is one of “participation”.
Paul (following Christ) presents salvation with the paradigm of participation (”…that they may be in me and I in them…”). Human salvation is 100% the work of God. Our ability to believe, repent, do good works, persevere, etc. come from the grace of God. Nothing is “of ourselves”. Yet this position does NOT entail monergism. 2 Peter says that we “participate” in the divine nature. We are not completely passive. Scripture NEVER speaks like that.
Calvinism only has it half right.
So the right answer is that salvation is 100% divine and 100% human – the divine grace being prior to human faith and works. That’s the Catholic position and I would challenge you to read the New Testament with this Catholic paradigm in mind. I think that you will find (as I have) that it sheds light on passages, brings about a cohesive whole, and clarifies those “difficult passages” that Protestants avoid or dismiss (e.g. James 2, Hebrews 6).
Taylor,
Thank you again for your reply.
Three things, (only three for the sake of time).
1. With respect, is your presentation actually the interpretation (or explanation) of chapter 5 of Trent or is it your own accommodation of Trent? It is Trent you have referred us to and the more I think about Trent the more I want to about the more general question, “Did Trent actually reflect Roman Catholicism at the time of writing, or was it a document that contained at least some new thinking?
2. I would say that the two verses you quote are wholly consistent with what you call “irresistable grace”. Indeed the picture of being born (John 3)is not something a child actually plans. The focus is on the activity of God. The Titus verse (and John 3 )seems very closely linked to passages such as those in Ezekiel which describe life being given to what is dead. Once again, the emphasis is on the activity of the Spirit.
3. The “how much does God do and how much do I do” question is not inherently wrong. Surely that is where Paul takes his readers in parts of the book of Romans, (not least in chapters 9-11)? When we emphasise God’s activity it does not make us automatons.
Once again, I thank you for your reply. I intend to keep reading and perhaps we can move through some other chapters in Trent.
Dear Nigel,
Thank you for the cordial interaction. Your questions are great!
Trent defined perennial doctrines (what Christ and the Apostles taught) in a new way in the face of new heresies (e.g. sola fide, sola scriptura, denial of the sacrificial aspect of the Eucharist, denial of the veneration of saints, etc).
You’ll find the same things in Saint Augustine who taught baptismal regeneration. Saint Augustine also that the grace of justification could be lost. I argue that you’ll find the same things in Paul. Paul and the Church Fathers don’t speak like Luther when it come to salvation. Luther’s doctrines (the bedrocks of Protestantism) are novel. You won’t find “faith alone” anywhere in the Pauline corpus. You won’t find “alien righteousness”. You will find the principle of koinonia (participation) all over the place. You will find Paul speaking of “faith working through love”. You will find Paul relating salvation to being “in Him” and “in Christ”. You’ll also find him saying that we can “fall from grace” (Gal 5:4). This is “Catholic-speak”. If you can’t bring yourself to use the phrase “fall from grace” then you’re not speaking like the Apostle.
I’m not saying Protestants have it all wrong. Clearly they don’t. But when it comes to soteriology, they have broken from Saint Augustine…and Saint Paul and the Apostles.
Hello again Taylor
Chapter 9 of Trent states the following
“But though it is necessary to believe that sins neither are remitted nor ever have been remitted except gratuitously by divine mercy for Christ’s sake, yet it must not be said that sins are forgiven or have been forgiven to anyone who boasts of his confidence and certainty of the remission of his sins,[47] resting on that alone, though among heretics and schismatics this vain and ungodly confidence may be and in our troubled times indeed is found and preached with untiring fury against the Catholic Church.
Moreover, it must not be maintained, that they who are truly justified must needs, without any doubt whatever, convince themselves that they are justified, and that no one is absolved from sins and justified except he that believes with certainty that he is absolved and justified,[48] and that absolution and justification are effected by this faith alone, as if he who does not believe this, doubts the promises of God and the efficacy of the death and resurrection of Christ.
For as no pious person ought to doubt the mercy of God, the merit of Christ and the virtue and efficacy of the sacraments, so each one, when he considers himself and his own weakness and indisposition, may have fear and apprehension concerning his own grace, since no one can know with the certainty of faith, which cannot be subject to error, that he has obtained the grace of God.”
Do you, personally, think the words “vain and ungodly confidence” is the proper way to describe what the Reformers saw as a work of the Spirit in a person’s heart? Furthermore, how are we to understand verses such as Romans 8v15?
This is not a confidence in our own faith, (as Protestants are often accused of). On the other hand I am not saying that all believers at all times have an assurance that they belong to God.
I hope to hear from you. Thanks
Nigel writes:
Do you, personally, think the words “vain and ungodly confidence” is the proper way to describe what the Reformers saw as a work of the Spirit in a person’s heart? Furthermore, how are we to understand verses such as Romans 8v15?
The magisterial Protestant teaching on “assurance” is vain. It is built on the assumption that grace is irresistible. It would be as if Saint Peter starting walking on the water with Christ and called back to his buddies in the boat: “I will never sink!”
For the Catholic, it is the hour of death that is the determining factor.
Romans 8:15: For you did not receive the spirit of slavery to fall back into fear, but you have received the spirit of sonship. When we cry, “Abba! Father!”
God will never turn away His sons and daughters. His children, however, may run away and change their names.
Saint Paul presents the proper view:
[12] Not that I have already obtained this or am already perfect; but I press on to make it my own, because Christ Jesus has made me his own.
[13] Brethren, I do not consider that I have made it my own; but one thing I do, forgetting what lies behind and straining forward to what lies ahead,
[14] I press on toward the goal for the prize of the upward call of God in Christ Jesus.
And again in 1 Cor 9:27 “but I pommel my body and subdue it, lest after preaching to others I myself should be disqualified.”
The goal of the Catholic is do be holy as our Father in Heaven is holy. “Being saved” isn’t enough. To declare with Luther that we are already 100% righteous in God’s eyes is “vain and ungodly confidence” – to use the words of the Council Fathers.
As Saint Augustine noted to Pelagius, we recite the words “lead us not into temptation and deliver us from evil” for a real reason. It’s an earnest supplication with the realization that we might betray God and squander our sonship.
Taylor,
With respect, when you say
“It would be as if Saint Peter starting walking on the water with Christ and called back to his buddies in the boat: “I will never sink!””
this is surely not a good illustration. It is not a confidence in what we can believe, or in our ability. It is a focus on the objective facts outside of ourselves. It is a faith that through the life, death and resurrection of Christ, the God who predestines not only the end but the means, works in our hearts to keep us faithful to him. Surely you need to address the wider context of the new life we have received. Dead people are made alive. Thus I could never actually heed the warning about deserting the Christian faith unless the Spirit works out this new life in me. This is what it is to be raised with Christ.
I hope that I will not tire you in continuing this conversation. I will try not to labour any of the points, for I have much to ask, (after looking at other things you have written). Even worse news– I might even visit Texas some time.
Nigel,
Seriously, if you come to Dallas, let’s grab a beer or coffee. I’d love it.
Scripture seems to indicate in many places (Heb 6 and 10) that salvation may be shipwrecked.
Also, living people can still die, even if they’ve been made alive. Luke 15:11-32 speaks of the Father’s son being made “alive again.”
Thanks once again for replying.
Firstly, can I say that the words in Luke 15, spoken in a parable, (and even further clarified by the following words, “he was lost and is found”), are surely not good enough for saying that a person can be regnerated by the spirit and subsequently die spiritually.
Having said that, there is no doubt that some people will indeed fool themselves as to their being made alive by the Spirit. However, for those who really have been made alive, and raised with Christ, and hidden with Christ in God, –they will not be lost.
More generally, I find it interesting that there seems to be such a fear of what you have termed “irresistible grace”. Is that not the closest approximation as to how Paul describes God’s way of working (in Romans 9-11). Is irresistible grace not giving God all the glory?
I will leave this subject now as I would love to discuss a wider issue, namely how you see the difference in hermeneutic between Westminster and your own. Have you the energy to discuss this?
Nigel,
You wrote:
“Having said that, there is no doubt that some people will indeed fool themselves as to their being made alive by the Spirit.”
How do you know that you are not one of these people? Many people have been 100% assured that they are a member of the elect, and then not been. You could be deceived… This is why Trent calls this theological opinion “vain”.
If irresistible grace is an erroneous teaching, then it should be avoided. I wouldn’t say that Catholic Christians “fear” the doctrine. They simply avoid it as incorrect. We read in the Acts of the Apostles:
Acts 7:51 “You stiff-necked people, uncircumcised in heart and ears, you always resist the Holy Spirit.” If humans can resist a divine Person of the uncreated Godhead (by the Holy Spirit’s permission, of course), then a fortiori they can also resist the created quality of grace.
Romans 9-11 explains that the gifts and callings of God are irrevocable with respect to the nation of Israel – yet this doesn’t mean that every genetic Israelite is regenerate and de facto saved? I understand Rom 9-11 to be teaching this distinction – not teaching “once saved always saved” – otherwise all Israelites would be saved.
The “irrevocable” aspect of God’s economy translates to Catholic soteriology. Sacraments operate ex opere operato – they are irrevocable. A baptized person doesn’t get baptized again when he returns to the Lord. This irrevocability doesn’t entail that the faithful cannot “fall away from grace” as Saint Paul teaches in Gal 5:4. Rather Christians can “fall away from grace” as the Bible teaches.
Your question about “Westminster” is interesting. Do you mean the Westminster Confession of Faith or Westminster seminary?
Godspeed,
Taylor
Taylor
Hope you are well.
I think I could sum up the differences between your position and mine in terms of the parable of the sower. Jesus shows that though some follow him outwardly for a while, they will fall away if they are not on the good ground. The good ground relates to him. Success is guearanteed in him.
In relation to the passages you quote, which spell out warnings, I would have to answer that those who are not regenrated by the Spirit cannot heed the warnings, whereas those who are regenerated are the only ones who can.
When I mentioned Westminster, I meant the Seminary. I have read other articles you have written and am especially intrigued by the way Mary is likened to the ark, (Revelation 11). This seems like strange speculation, especially in light of Revelation 12, where it surely could not refer to Mary. More than that, it seems that a lot of teaching is piled up on top of such speculation. Has your hermeneutic changed as you have embraced Roman Catholicism?
Regards
Nigel
Dear Nigel
“I would have to answer that those who are not regenrated by the Spirit cannot heed the warnings, whereas those who are regenerated are the only ones who can.”
So are they hypothetical warnings to the regenerate – warnings that God won’t actually follow through with?
For Mary as the Ark, that’s the majority hermeneutical position of Christian interpreters. Saint Athanasius called Mary the Ark of the New Covenant…so it’s not something novel. It goes way back.
Note how the last verse in Rev ch. 11 (the ark of the covenant) leads into the image of the woman.
And why can’t Mary be the woman of Rev 12? The male child with the rod of iron is a unique person (Christ). The dragon is a unique person (Satan). The archangel is a unique person (Michael). Why then say that the other person in the narrative is NOT a unique person? It sounds to me like prejudice against Mary.
BTW, Catholics see the woman of Rev 12 as both old Israel and Mary – the two are not mutually exclusive. Mary’s womb is the matrix between Israel and the Church (the New Israel).
Dear Nigel
“I would have to answer that those who are not regenrated by the Spirit cannot heed the warnings, whereas those who are regenerated are the only ones who can.”
So are they hypothetical warnings to the regenerate – warnings that God won’t actually follow through with? Also, Heb 6 refers to them as being “enlightened” a word used universally in the Church Fathers for “regenerate”.
For Mary as the Ark, that’s the majority hermeneutical position of Christian history. Saint Athanasius called Mary the Ark of the New Covenant…so it’s not something novel. If you call it “strange speculation”, then I’m guilty, but so is Saint Athanasius (rather good company!).
Note how the last verse in Rev ch. 11 (the ark of the covenant) leads into the image of the woman.
And why can’t Mary be the woman of Rev 12? The male child with the rod of iron is a unique person (Christ). The dragon is a unique person (Satan). The archangel is a unique person (Michael). Why then say that the other person in the narrative is NOT a unique person? It sounds to me like prejudice against Mary.
BTW, Catholics see the woman of Rev 12 as both old Israel and Mary – the two are not mutually exclusive. Mary’s womb is the matrix between Israel and the Church (the New Israel).
Hello Taylor
The warnings are not hypothetical. Surely the issue here is to see that God not only plans the “end”, but also the “means”.
Thus Jude 24-25.
As for Mary being represented by the Ark, can you see the difficulty others, (that you say are the minority), would have with such speculation becoming a major point in Roman Catholicism?
Thanks once again for dialogue.
Nigel,
Yes, I can definitely see how Protestants have difficulty with the Athanasian interpretation of Mary as the Ark of the New Covenant. It takes a hermeneutic that is open to the four senses of Scripture (literal, allegorical moral, anagogical). If a group of Christians read Scripture with an exclusively literal interpretation, then they aren’t going to allow the Mary=Ark conclusion (especially if they’re worred that Mary’s role is over-extended).
My question for Christians of that conviction iwould be: Do the Apostles use allegory? How?
As to the other issue, I can’t see how the warnings are strictly “hypothetical”. God says, if you trample the blood of the covenant, you’ll go to Hell. Then when someone does it, God doesn’t follow through. You’re probably not saying that, but that is how I read you.
Well, the question of the day for me, sensitive as I am to Wright’s exegesis, is why hasn’t Wright swam the Tiber? He does consider his perspective to transcend both Catholic and Protestant debates, you know. Cynically speaking, maybe he’s got too much to lose?
I agree in general with your post, but Wright has some serious problems with the Catholic church (not least its doctrine of justification), and he has voiced them off-handedly on numerous occasions. I’ll certainly admit that imbibing a dose of Wright does lead one on toward at least a warmer ecumenicity, but hardly does he push one into the water.
Chris,
Wright’s doctrine of justification isn’t that of Rome. However, it’s not that of Luther and Calvin, either. It’s somewhere between. Nevertheless, it certainly dislodges the Reformed mind and nudges it toward Rome.
Wright has other quibbles with Rome – women’s ordination, ecclesiology, role of Rome, and purgatory. Also, having been an Anglican cleric myself, I suspect that Wright feels no pressure to move on account of dogmatic convictions. As Anglican you can always adapt yourself closer to or farther away from Rome. For me it came down to ultimate magisterial authority.
I also think that Wright’s occasional bone-throwing to Protestants is just that. He’s already run Luther out of the house. And yet, as you noted, he has yet to ask Robert Bellarmine for breakfast.
Hello again
“Do you think that we are really spiritually dead, before we turn to Christ?”
Also, would you say that Calvin got it wrong in interpreting Augustine in a way that supported his own view of Predestination? I would be especially interested in your view of Calvin, Book 3, Chapter 23, Point 14. I have not written out the quotation as I am hoping you have not burned your Calvin books, (Institutes).
Thanks
I still have the Institutes on my bookshelves…
Yes, Calvin ignored the fact that an elect person can move in and out of grace. So can the non-elect person. Augustine explicitly teaches that justification can be lost – something inconceivable for Calvin.
You can be a Catholic and believe in unconditional election – and so Augustine’s belief is not abhorrent to the Church. The problem is not that Calvin believes in predestination.
Is that a satisfactory answer or were looking for something else?
Taylor
I am at this website specifically because I have followed a trail which started by first reading Wright, then I read Stott, then Calvin, and Luther, Thomas Merton and finally Neuhaus and Lewis. Now I am reading on a Paul is Catholic website. So I would say yes Wright is a protestant gateway to Catholicism.
PS. Great site!
A Tucker,
Sounds like a similar journey! Welcome. I hope that you’ll take a look at the podcasts which are the meat and potatoes of this site. And please leave comments. We’d love to interact with your questions, concerns, and comments.
Hello again Taylor
Hope you are well. I have been on a little vacation but have kept thinking about some of the things we have discussed.
Can you tell me by what strength can we stay loyal to God? Is is ours? Is it God’s? Is it back to the “cooperation thing” between us and God? If so, do we get the ability to cooperate from God, or from ourselves?
Thanks
Do you think there’s any chance N.T. Wright will take advantage of Pope Benedict XVI’s Apostolic Constitution which sets up Personal Ordinariates for disaffected Anglicans?
How is Trent covenantal and eschatological? To me it seems that the decretum de iustificatione sets out a pretty “timeless” system of how one is saved, the problem being that the timeless system only starts with the coming of Christ, because before him the pagans couldn’t do it on their own and the Jews couldn’t do it with the Law. There is no reference to the promises given to Abraham (covenant) or to an end-time-overlap-of-the-ages soteriology…
Trent is old perspective in that it isn’t expressly eschatological or covenantal but rather just an answer to “how one goes to heaven”, BUT the answer is close to the new perspective in many ways – familial adoption, ecclesiastical communion, sacramental transformation, obedience, judgment by works on the last day, synergism… That is why Trent is a nice via media between the hard-core “Old perspective” (Protestant individualism) and hard-core New Perspective (”it’s all about ecclesiology rather than soteriology”) – BAPTISM and DIVINE FILIATION or ADOPTION INTO GOD’S FAMILY THROUGH HIS SON, THE NEW ADAM, AND GROWING IN UNION WITH HIM – these are the keys to seeing that The Catholic Perspective incorporates the best of the old and the new, the soteriological and the ecclesiological. What Wright has (W)rightly added is the covenant with Abraham stuff, it’s missing from Trent as well as his OP opponents (not Dominicans but Old Perspectivists). It needs to be given its rightful place.
Emil,
You wrote: “How is Trent covenantal and eschatological?”
Even though I would say that Trent is “covenantal” (in virtue of the role of baptism) I didn’t say that in the post above. Rather, I said that Trent was “sacramental, transformational, COMMUNAL, and eschatological.”
The communal aspect comes out in Trent’s reference to the catechumenate as related to baptism – i.e. its a communal (even covenantal) approach to sacraments and justification.
The eschatological aspect comes out in this section of Trent (Session 6, ch 7):
Wherefore, when receiving true and Christian justice, they are bidden, immediately on being born again, to preserve it pure and spotless, as the first robe given them through Jesus Christ in lieu of that which [Page 36] Adam, by his disobedience, lost for himself and for us, that so they may bear it before the judgment-seat of our Lord Jesus Christ, and may have life everlasting.
Dear Taylor, thanks for the answer. The word “covenantal” did appear in the same paragraph though, describing how Wright leads you to Trent… so that’s where I got it from. And yes I suppose one would go to baptism if one wanted to argue Trent is covenantal… and to the Adam-Christ typology present as well.
The eschatological quote was good, but as Wright says in his response, it isn’t quite the same as what he means when he speaks about eschatology… it’s not “the 4 last things” but the “overlap of the ages” that is primarily in view.