Saturday, November 27, 2004
Doug Wilson gives his thoughts on Guy Waters' Justification and the New Perspectives on Paul. On the whole, Wilson is quite favourable in his treatment of Waters. I would be interested to hear what others have made of Waters' book. I have yet to obtain a copy of it (although I have ordered one, along with the second volume of Justification and Variegated Nomism). I have found Wilson's treatment of Wright in the past dissatisfying on a number of counts. In his post Wilson says that his doctrinal sympathies lie more with Gaffin than with Wright. Great as Gaffin is, given the choice I would have to go with Wright. I believe that Gaffin, despite all his fantastic work on such subjects as the resurrection, gives insufficient attention to the ecclesial dimension of salvation. I find Gaffin's critique of the New Perspective ill-informed and unpersuasive. I believe that if he had given more attention to what Wright has actually said on the subject of imputation, he would realize that Wright's position is not that far removed from his own. Gaffin also challenges Dunn's refusal to read double predestination of individuals in Romans 9:14-23. I am with Ridderbos with respect to the correct treatment of Romans 9 and don't believe that a doctrine of double predestination of individuals (as this doctrine is commonly understood) is the point of the passage. I find the whole doctrine of double predestination problematic as it seems to imply that there is some more fundamental expression of the divine will than that which is expressed in the Man Christ Jesus (do I hear Lutherans muttering 'extra-Calvinisticum'...?). If double predestination, as it has been taught by many within the Reformed tradition, is really biblical then looking to Christ for assurance of my election becomes a real problem. We return to a merely formal doctrine of election, with Christ as its executor, rather than as its content. I am not prepared to do this.