N.T. Wright: What did Paul really say?

[Guest]

Darin, if you're still around.

I just commented on the "So What?" thread regarding if, or in what sense, NTW is a Calvinist. I found that there were "Anglican representatives and signers" at the Council of Dort. It may be in this sense NTW considers himself a Calvinist; that his church had been historically. I say "had been" because I still don't know to what extent The Church of England, and NTW by extension, adhere to the Council of Dort decisions, where the 5-Points of Calvinism as we know it today were drafted-up. The CoE seems to be in its own separate class...like NTW.

[Guest]

'Googled: The Synod of Dort and the Complexities of Being Reformed

excerpted

Many within the Church of England also felt no need to apply the title of what they viewed to be a subset of Protestantism to themselves, opting instead to simply refer to the doctrine of the Church. Many conservative and “Reformed” English Churchmen valued the names of Augustine and Prosper as much or more than that of Calvin, and thus they did not refer to themselves as Calvinists. Further complicating maters is the tendency for the moderate Calvinists to criticize “rigid Calvinism.” Such a reference should not be interpreted as a slight against Calvin. “Rigid Calvinist” was the name given to the supralapsarians. It was not uncommon for a moderately Calvinistic Anglican (who never referred to himself as such) to seem antagonistic towards “Calvinism” when in reality it is the supralapsarians (or perhaps some of the Presbyterian-minded Puritans) he specifically had in mind.

The diversity at Dort, of course, is true of both tendencies. The British and Bremen delegates represented the more moderate strands of Calvinism, but there were also several high Calvinists present that tended towards outright hyper-Calvinism.

The British delegates at Dort are often portrayed as softer Calvinists. This description needs to be questioned for several reasons. The first is that the Remonstrants were originally invited to Dort. With their presence, the British and Bremen delegates are actually in the middle of the spectrum, with the Gomarists at the other extreme. When we compare the positions of the University of Heidelberg in the previous generation, as well as the broader English theological landscape, the British delegates at Dort can be seen to be well within the mainstream of Reformed orthodoxy. They were committed to absolute predestination, and could call upon citations from Calvin, Zanchius, Pareus, and their own James Ussher for support for their views on the atonement. There was even some division among the British delegates on these issues. Carleton, Balcanquall, and Goad were known for teaching a more restricted doctrine of the atonement, while Davenant and Ward were known for teaching a broader doctrine. Initially Carleton and Balcanquall both sympathized with Gomarus, asking Martinius to modify his position, however through the persuasive arguments of Davenant, as well as the intemperate behavior of Gomarus, the British eventually agreed among themselves to support Martinius’s position affirming that election is founded in the person of Christ. The official British position on the canons of Dort can be found in their Collegiat Suffrage, and while it is true that Davenant and Ward were successful in obtaining a majority of their views, Anthony Milton notes, “Some of the points initially desired by Ward and Davenant were excluded from the final Suffrage.”

One other point that should be noted is that the Canons of Dort never held confessional status over the English churches. The British delegates were sent by King James I, not by the Church of England, and thus served as private citizens. They gave their approval to the content of the Canons of Dort, however, their opinions, as found in the Collegiat Suffrage, include many more qualifications, creating a manuscript that is much larger than the Dutch Canons. The British were also asked to grant their approval to the Three Forms of Unity, which they did with certain significant reservations. The British clearly disagreed with the Dutch over polity, as well as the interpretation of Christ’s descent into hell in the Apostles’ Creed. The British also held to a stronger view of baptismal grace than the typical Dutch thinker, and they expressly noted their concern not to require certain formulations of the imputation of Christ’s active righteousness among subscriptional standards. After returning to England, Samuel Ward stringently defended the decisions of Dort, all the while maintaining that the Church of England’s confessional documents had not been departed from and that they remained the rule of England’s faith.

Long quotes, sorry. Reading the whole blog is better.

At any rate, I think NTW referred to himself as a Calvinist first, somewhat mistakenly, in that he could be seen as a 5-point Calvinist. Secondly, as seen above and in the blog, though the Church of England consented to the Canons of Dort; some of their positions were more compatible with Arminian thought (such as election in Christ).

I found it interesting that "The British...expressly noted their concern not to require certain formulations of the imputation of Christ’s active righteousness among subscriptional standards." Remind you of anyone?

I could say, "I'm Reformed" to mean I'm Protestant but may be understood to mean I'm a 5-point Calvinist.

Wright may have called himself a Calvinist in that The Church of England was in-on the Synod of Dort. Since The CoE didn't accept the Canons on a confessional level, and were more moderately Calvinistic at the Synod; I feel this shows that Wright didn't intend to be seen as a 5-point Calvinist. However we look at it, he still made a mistake in calling himself a Calvinist without an explanation. Especially, since most 5-point Calvinists are so strongly against him.

If this blog tells us anything, it is that there were more types of "Calvinists" than we usually think. Leave alone the many more versions there are of them now.

[Guest]

However we look at it, he still made a mistake in calling himself a Calvinist without an explanation. Especially, since most 5-point Calvinists are so strongly against him.

This is a very interesting posting, though I don't think Wright makes many verbal mistakes on such points. I also think he's a bit of a darling of many 5 pointers, though they clearly disagree with him on some points such as justification. I'm not sure he agrees with the Arminian position on election "in Christ." He has made comments which suggest to me that he clearly thinks there is personal election in God's eternal decrees. Though, I am still trying to figure him out on these issues.

[Guest]

However we look at it, he still made a mistake in calling himself a Calvinist without an explanation. Especially, since most 5-point Calvinists are so strongly against him.

You replied:
This is a very interesting posting, though I don't think Wright makes many verbal mistakes on such points. I also think he's a bit of a darling of many 5 pointers, though they clearly disagree with him on some points such as justification. I'm not sure he agrees with the Arminian position on election "in Christ." He has made comments which suggest to me that he clearly thinks there is personal election in God's eternal decrees. Though, I am still trying to figure him out on these issues.

Yes. A lot of Christians (of whatever theological stripe) like NTW for his work on the Resurrection of both Jesus, ourselves, and things related to these.

I'm pretty sure NTW's view on election is essentially the same a Steve Gregg's, as far as Romans 9 goes. Also, I don't know what percentage of Arminians see our election as being "in Christ" though some certainly do. Some base it on foreknowledge and wouldn't necessarily see it as being "elected in the Elect One" (which is basically Karl Barth's and, I think, NTW's view).

Was Barth a Calvinist? Never mind!

Second, it is simply not true, as people have said again and again, that I deny or downplay the place of the individual in favour of a corporate ecclesiology. True, I have reacted against the rampant individualism of western culture, and have tried to insist on a biblically rooted corporate solidarity in the body of Christ as an antidote to it. But this in no way reduces the importance of every person being confronted with the powerful gospel, and the need for each one to be turned around by it from idols to God, from sin to holiness, and from death to life.

Wright is speaking about ecclesiology, referring to how both individuals and the corporate body are "in" the Church. I don't think he separates the two: Paul didn't either.

That Synod of Dort blog has lotsa info in it, huh? Anyways, thanks, Darin,