So says Mike Horton as he continues he review of Wright’s latest:
“As typical throughout this volume, Wright both caricatures the opposing view and transforms an important insight into the main point. It is in the Gospels that we first encounter questions like, “What must I do to be saved?” and “Who then may be saved?” and “What is the work that I must do to be saved?” Indeed, the severity of the sanctions for violating the Sinai covenant provoked this concern, particularly in the wake of the prophets’ judgments that were fulfilled in Israel’s exile. But just as there is a greater exodus to come for all who believe, there is a greater exile. Wright assumes that we’ve never talked about the first-century expectations being that of a political messiah who would end the exile and drive out the Romans. Once again, his target is “a non-historical soteriology” (61). The same criticisms can be found in Vos, Ridderbos, Murray, Kline, and host of other Reformed exegetes. However, their target was not the Reformation but an individualistic and non-historical soteriology that is basically pietistic in origins.”
R. Scott Clark
R.Scott Clark is the President of the Heidelberg Reformation Association, the author and editor of, and contributor to several books and the author of many articles. He has taught church history and historical theology since 1997 at Westminster Seminary California. He has also taught at Wheaton College, Reformed Theological Seminary, and Concordia University. He has hosted the Heidelblog since 2007.
More by R. Scott Clark ›
Panel – N. T. Wright and the Doctrine of Justification. Thought you’d be interested to hear that.
Unfortunately, I sense pride and stature may have make that almost impossible. He is at such height in his career with such a massive amount of devoted followers that to admit any error would seriously jepodize his tenure as a savior between Rome and Protestants.
To be fair this is not him alone, this happens to majority of people with high stature. They are so committed to a conviction that their names are attached to them, and that at the end they dont’ let the facts or evidences critique them, but rather they manipulate the facts and evidence that conforms to their convictions.
It would be incredibly refreshing (and a great benefit to the Church) if Wright would simply acknowledge that he has been wrong at numerous points regarding both the history of Reformed thought and his own formulations of the doctrine of the Justification.
Such an admission would in no way impare his considerable reputation as a New Testament scholar.