The Society for the Advancement of Ecclesiological Theology

November 27, 2010 by Gerald Hiestand

Wright, Justification and the Arian Controversy

I’m no expert on Wright, but I have read a good deal of his work as it relates to justification. And generally, I think much of the criticism leveled against him misses the mark, chiefly because his critics fail to deal with him on his own semantic terms. Simply put, Wright doesn’t use the term “justified” in the same way that more traditional Protestants do. For Wright, justification is not about getting saved, but about declaring who is already saved. Or in Wright’s terms, it’s not about getting in, but about declaring who is already in. So when Wright says that we are justified at the judgment on the basis of/according to Spirit-wrought works, he doesn’t mean that we are saved at the final judgment by such works. He means that our position within the covenant (already previously determined) is made evident at the judgment based upon God’s work in our lives. Substantively, I don’t find this any different than Piper or Calvin or any other theologian who ascribes to works a vindicating, rather than instrumental, role at the judgment.  Andrew Cowan makes this clear in a recent post on Justin Taylor’s blog. It’s worth reading the whole piece, but here’s the salient part:

Wright’s understanding of the function of Spirit-inspired works in final justification is identical to his understanding of the function of faith in present justification.  Just as Spirit-produced faith is the initial sign that God has made one a member of his covenant people, so in final justification, Spirit-produced good works serve as the sign that one was truly a member of God’s covenant people from the point of one’s conversion on.  When Wright has said that good works are the “basis” of the believer’s final justification, he has meant that Spirit-inspired works serve as the evidence that one truly is a covenant member.  They are the “basis” for final justification the same way that a paternity test may serve as the “basis” for the verdict in a paternity lawsuit.  A paternity test does not make one a father; it demonstrates that one was a child’s father all along.  So also, Spirit-inspired works do not make one a covenant member in Wright’s view; they demonstrate that one has been a covenant member all along.  The assertion that Wright understands Spirit-inspired works to be the believer’s “righteousness” in final justification misconstrues both his understanding of the meaning of “righteousness” language and his understanding of the question under consideration in the divine courtroom.

Now it’s necessary at some point to have a discussion about the way the terms “justified” and “righteousness” are used in Scripture (and thus the best way to use these terms theologically), but that’s not the same thing as having a discussion regarding the substance of one’s position. Just because Wright is not using the term “justified” in the traditional sense, does not mean that he is necessarily jettisoning the substance of Reformation soteriology. Two sides of a debate can largely agree in substance, yet strongly disagree in semantics. Or they may both disagree in substance and semantics. But until each side takes the other on their own semantic terms, they will never be able to get to the substance of the other’s position. A brief example from church history to illustrate my point…

During the great Arian controversy, the term homousia (one substance) was used by Athanasius and the (largely Western) pro-Nicene party to defend the full deity of Christ. But for many of the eastern Fathers, the term homousia had a different nuance, one that did not readily allow for a real distinction between persons. Thus to deploy the term homousia in the Eastern context was to till the soil for Sabellianism, a heresy they were particularly leery of. Consequently, as the Arian controversy ebbed and flowed many of the eastern Fathers were lumped in with the Arians because of their refusal to adopt the (then) controversial term. But the differences between the pro-Nicene party and these “semi-Arians” were only semantics. Both sides meant the same thing, they just couldn’t agree on how to say it. Wisely, Athanasius saw that the semi-Arians were substantively correct, even if reticent to adopt the Nicene formula (given their Eastern context). Athanasius worked toward reconciliation, arguing that the substance of one’s position was more important than any particular terms that were used. Holding out an olive branch, Athanasius insisted that the semi-Arians be regarded as orthodox. He then bent over backward to show the semi-Arians that the Nicene deployment of homousia was the best way to dispel the Arian threat. Eventually, the semi-Arians were brought into the Nicene fold.

But imagined what would have happened if both sides had insisted on retaining their respective understandings of homousia. Athanasius and the pro-Nicene party would have continued to issue anathemas against the substantively orthodox, yet semantically hertrodox, Eastern Fathers. And for their part, the Eastern Fathers would have continued to view Nicaea as a largely western/Latin capitulation to Sabellianism. But Athanasius’ ability to see beyond the semantics enabled both sides to stop anathematizing the other and come to a real place of understanding, and ultimately, reconciliation.

In many ways, I’ve always felt that something similar needed to happen between Wright and his critics. And it looks that perhaps this may have finally happened at ETS. I hope so. I’m not suggesting the differences between Wright and his critics are merely semantics.  But I am fairly certain, given what I’ve read of Wright thus far, that he is not as substantively different from traditional Reformation thought as his critics have made him out to be.

Categories: General | Gerald Hiestand | Tom Wright