Paul Helm has a trenchant critique of N. T. Wright’s view of “justification.” Particularly, Helm notes:
If the positive imputation of Christ’s righteousness is ‘legalistic’, then so is his own view that imputation is negative, that it covers the non-imputation of the sins and trespasses of the believer. This also is a point of logic, that is, a question of the consistency or otherwise of Wright’s views. (This point might be pressed: How does the faithfulness of the faithful Israelite, Jesus Christ, become ours, negating our sins and trespasses, except through ‘positive’ imputation?)
See also, Dan Wallace’s review of Wright’s understanding of δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ (the righteousness of God). Wallace concludes:
Wright’s synthesis of Romans as a brilliant failure—brilliant because of how coherent it is, but a failure because it sits three feet above the text at all points where it would be inconvenient to wrestle with what the text actually says.
I’m curious if any of the reviews that you’ve read have caused you to waver in your support and/or understanding of Wright? By and large do you think Wright is being fairly represented by Helm and Wallace or have they misunderstood him?
Hey Louis:
Good question and thanks for asking. Yes, the reviews have certainly gotten my attention. I think Wallace’s article stating that Wright “hovers above” the text rather than immersed in the text, along with concluding that Wright’s polemic is a “brilliant failure” due to its amazing coherence, impacted me greatly. Then there’s Helm’s keen analyses that are certainly to be reckoned with, particularly the most recent one. I find little to disagree with on Helm.
Of course, not hearing Wright’s rejoinder to these and the many other responses leaves it somewhat open as I want to give Wright the benefit of the doubt, but I’m far less ready to defend his position as I once was.
Perhaps the biggest issue is the stripping of all moral connotations from δικαιοσύνη (and its cognates) insisting that it is merely a legal declaration rather than some kind of real moral change in me. Why would God declare/announce his faithfulness (or that of Jesus’) to me if there is no substantive change in me?
This kind of reminds me when I was reading MacArthur against the charismatic movement in the 80s only to read Carson (Exegetical Fallacies, Showing the Spirit) later to learn that MacArthur’s rhetoric did not withstand closer scrutiny from Scripture or logic. Or, when dispensational theology was deeply embedded in my thinking until I read Thomas McComiskey (The Covenants of Promise), Kaiser and others to challenge my views of Israel and the Church (remember those days?!).