Tabletalk Takes on the New Perspective(s)

The latest issue of Tabletalk (Feb, 2010) devoted to answering the question: “What N.T. Wright Really Said” as it looks at the controversy surrounding N.T. Wright and the doctrine of justification.

Tabletalk is a devotional magazine of substance featuring a remarkable array of contributors. Ligonier Ministries and Tabletalk are to be congratulated for daring to take on such a difficult and controversial topic. Except for Modern Reformation, which has addressed the NPP many times, few magazines could muster the array and quality of contributors on an issue like this. If you’re new to this question or have been looking for a clear, brief explanation of what it’s all about, here it is.

Two Westminster Seminary California faculty members, Mike Horton and John Fesko, contributed to this issue. John looks the central issue “works of the law” in Paul. The NPP has sought to re-define and restrict the meaning of the phrase “works of the law” so that virtually no one is actually guilty of doing what Paul prohibits. Mike’s essay looks at the equally important question of justification and ecumenical relations. A good bit of mischief has been done in the name of “ecumenism” in the doctrine of justification.

One of the regular features of Tabletalk is column, For the Church, to which I contributed this month. The article is online now.

Tabletalk is a great resource. If you’re not a subscriber, you’re missing out.

Subscribe to the Heidelblog today!


  1. Hello,

    Re: “ecumenism”… Having read Piper’s book, as well as read and listened to any number of reviews and critiques on N.T. Wright’s NPP, I’ve come to the suspicion that Wright’s unspoken motivation (not exclusively) for his innovations was to undermine the need of the Reformation (redefine God’s righteousness & justification and voila). If the Reformation got it wrong, and even Rome got it wrong… then how much easier for us all to get along. Just a thought.


  2. The good bishop of Moscow is posting on each of the articles and guess what? Everyone one of the contributors so far who is on record critizing the Federal Vision gets a slap upside the head!

  3. Thanks for this “hat tip,” Scott. And thanks again for your contribution.

    It’s of course a gambit to cover such material in short form. Our simple desire was to be fair and yet clearly point out the sharp differences, without adding to the confusion. It was a challenging issue just from a production standpoint—but a lot of fun too.

  4. Dr. Clark,

    In addition to praising Ligonier Ministries for taking on this project, I think we should note how Bishop Wright is a walking and talking advertisement for the thesis of Recovering the Reformed Confession.

    For as long as I can remember, evangelicals have divided the world into conservatives (the good guys) and liberals (the bad guys). Along comes someone like Bishop Wright, who certainly treats the Bible with great seriousness – and large segements of the evangelical world (including many Reformed) want to give him a white hat.

    Let us happily acknowledge that a great deal of Bishop Wright’s work is of value to the Church. But let us always remember that a formal committment to the authority of Scripture is an insufficient boundary marker for orthodoxy.


  5. I find it ironic that this issue of TableTalk addresses the NPP and FV, while R.C. Sproul, Jr., who is a minister in the CREC, works for Ligonier.

  6. Steve,

    It is only ironic if a. the CREC is devoted to NPP and or FV and b. the issue were on FV at all, which it wasn’t and c. if I were a proponent of fv. Am not, never have been, though I am constantly accused of being so. You might want to check out my article. Hope that helps. God bless.


Comments are closed.